Corinthians, first epistle to the (Hastings' Dictionary)

1, Place of the Kplstle in Tradition. 2. 'I'raiismlsslon of the Text. H. Internal Kvldence and Genuineness. 4. Keeelil Criticism. ^. St. Paul's earlier Helatlons with Corinth. fi. The Place of the I'.pistle in Pauline Chronolojry. 7. Condition of tlie Corinthian Church. H. Immediate Circiimstanees and Subjects of the EpUtlc !) Analysis of the ICpistlo. 10. Importance of the K|ilstlo (general). 11. Doctrinal Importance. 12. The Christian Life, Individual and corporate. In the K.pistle. 1:1.

Scleei iilMloirrnphy. 1. The two companion Epistles to the Corin- thians have occupied from the lirst an unchallenged 484 L CORINTHIANS I. CORINTH LANS place among the acknowledged writings of St. Paul. These writings, as is well known, formed a recognized group, under the name of 'the Apostle,' * before the date at which we have evidence of a complete NT Canon. The well-known response t of the Seillitan MartjTS (A.D.

180) at once includes and distinguishes the ' letters of Paul a just man ' among the ' books ' carried about by Christians. That a collection of Pauline letters existed at least as early as the reign of Trajan is a strong inference from the now generally accepted date of the Ignatian letters.

J Whether or no the whole thirteen letters, already included in the Muratorian list, were part of this collection from the lirst cannot be discussed here ; but it is of special in- terest for our purpose to note that, although eventu- ally superseded by the modern order, traceable as far back as Origen, a very ancient order of the thir- teen Epp., preserved in Can. Marat, and attested from other quarters, places the Epp. to Corinth at the head of the list.

Zahn infers that this order is the primitive one, and that the collection of Pauline Epp. was first made at Corinth.§ In any case, the recognition of our Epistle is coeval with the evidence for any collection of the apostle ; in fact it goes back beyond any clear evidence of the kind. The reference in Clement of Rome (xlvii. 1) is, unlike most of the early references to NT books, a formal appeal to our letter. Echoes of the Ep.

are too numerous to be quoted here (a fairly full collection is in Charteris Canonicity, p. 222 If.); they occur in Clement of Rome (seven), Ignatius (nine), Polycarp (three, or with the Martyrdom, four), Justin (at least five) [Hermas, Sim. V. vii. 2, is doubtful, and the same may be said of Didaehe x. fiapiv dfld], and others. From the citations in Hippolj tus we know that the Ophites knew our Ep. ; tlie same is true of Basilides as well as of the later Gnostics.

It is unnecessary to set out in detail the evidence for an undisputed fact (see below, § 4). 2. The Epistle has been transmitted in the Peshitta, Old Lat., Copt., and other oldest versions of NT as well as in the principal Gr. MSS. Of the latter, the Epistle is contained entire in kBADp»"1 (1413-22 'manu alia antiqua'), E (copy of D), L. FG contain all but 3»-l« 67 i< C all except 718-96 13»-15J0, P all excejit 7i» '" 1223-1.35 1423-39. Fragments are contained in F», H (cf.

Robinson, ExUhaUana, 60f.), 12, K (considerable). M. Q, S, 2. Of thecursives, it may suffice to refer to 67", 6, 47, 37 as of special interest. The Old Lat. of our Epistle is transmitltcl in the Lat. VS of the Gr.-I^tin MSS DE (d e ; on f and g see Grej^ory. I'mteijomeiui, p. 9C9, and Sanday-Headlam, Romans, pp. Ixvi ff.), and in x,, a 9th cent. MS at Oxford ; fragments only in m and r.

The Epistle then comes down to us with every possible external attestation of genuineness, and its integrity (see on 2 Co, § 8) is equally free from suspicion. 3. But external attestation is hardly enough to determine the authorship of a book in the face of internal evidence. What then does the Epistle tell us of its authorship?

We may remark generally that no NT writing bears a more con- vincing stamp of ori'dnality than tliis letter ; it is clearly the reflex of a great and markedly indi- vidual personality. Manifold as are its contents, its several parts hang naturally together, and are strongly homogeneous in treatment and style. Moreover, as we shall see presently, the Ep., read in conjunction with our other .

sources of know- ledge, yielils a detinitely realizable historical situation, without a particle of evidence to sug- gest that it stands to those sources in a secondary relation Until quite modem times, and except • Zahn, Oesch. d. NT Knnimt, 1. 263, n. 8. t Zahn, II. ii. 996. I. 82. 80 nn. J The question will be found discussed under OABOir, Paul: cf. Sandav, BL p. 363 fl. % I. 835'ff. But see Clemen, BinheitlichkeU «ar PB, 11, 178. within a limited area, this has not been questioned. Our Ep.

, with 2 Co, Ro, and Gal, have, as is well known, formed the unimpeached and unassailable nucleus of admitted Pauline \\Titings, and have furnished to criticism the standard by which the claims of all other sujipo.sed Pauline literature have been estimated. Tliis was conspicuously the case in the period of the Tubingen school.

With the exception of the free, lance Bruno Bauer, whose isolated attack is recorded rather as a literary curiosity than as a contribution to histori- cal criticism, the four Epp. were allowed on all sides, even by the most radical criticism, to be the genuine work of St. Paul. This was characteristic of the genuine psychological insight which, in spite of admitted extravagances of subjective criticism, marks the work of F. C. Baur and his ablest followers. 4.

Of late years, however, the genuineness o! the four ' Pavuine homologumena ' has been called in question by a somewliat more imposing body of opinion.* On the one hand, a somewhat numerous band of Dutch writers (Loma.n,Quaestiones Paulinae in Th. T. 1882-1886 ; Pierson and Naber, Veri- similia, 1886 ; Van Manen in Jahrbb. f. Prot. Thcol. 1883-1887, and others) have, by subjective criticism of the wildest kind, endeavoured to dis- solve the personality of St.

Paul and of Jesus Christ, and resolve the teaching of the Epp. into the i>roduct of vague and arbitrarily-assumed movements of Jewish religious thought. Kuenen, Scholten, and others have thought the arguments by which these views are supported worthy of refutation, but any detailed notice of extrava- gances, tending only to bring rational historical criticism into discredit, would be out of place in an article like the present.

The same must be said of a somewhat less fanciful critic, Rudolf Steck, professor at Bern, who published (Berlin, 1888) Der Galaterbricf nach seiner Echtheit untersTicht. His arguments reach our Ep. through that to the Galatians. The latter is condemned, partly on the ground of its discrepancies with Ac (exactly reversing the argument of Baur and his followers, .Steck allows Ac a relative superiority as a source), lartly on that of its literary dependence upon tlo, and 1 and 2 Co.

Extending the method to the latter, Steck t finds in our Epistles signs of de- pendence on Ro (e.g. the 4 yiypairrai of 1 Co 4' refers to Ro 12^ !), while the latter in turn pre- supposes the Gospels, and such post-Christian Apocr. as 2 Es and the Assumption of Moses. Accordingly, all the ' Pauline homologumena ' fall to the r^round. Our Ep.

in particular is dependent upon tlie synoptic Gospels, especially ou Lk, as appears from the accounts of the Last Supper (1 Co 1 1 ) and of the post-Resurrection appearances of Christ ( 1 Co 15). Steck appears to have gained a con vert in J. Friedrich {Die UneclUlieit des Galater- Brief es, 1891). Those who wish to follow the questions raised by Loman, Steck, and iheir adherents into further detail, may be referred *fi the works quoted in the previous notes.

A general weakness of all the writers in question appears to be a defective ap]ireciation of personality, carrying with it an inabihty to distinguish the spontaneous from the artificiiu. In common with tlie representatives of • A careful account of the aixuments of the Dutch h.vper- critical school, and of Steck. is ^'iven by Knowling, The WitiuiM 0/ the EjnstteSfCh. iii. ; cf. al.'Jo Schmiedel in Harui-Kojnmentar, vol. ii.

; Zahn, Die Brief e de» Pauhu seit 50 Jahren im Fever der Kritik (in ZKW, 1889). The ar^ments of Vdlter (Eompogitian der paid. H.-Brie/e. 1800) reach a similar conclusion by a super- ivliiied method of analysis. t Steck is answered by Glocl, Die jnn/jgte Kritik de* Galater- brie/e^, and Lindemann, Die Echtheii tier p. Ilauptbrie/e ; for what specially refers to our Epistle see Knowling, pp. 190-207. The question has been debated from time to time, especially to the Pro'. Kirehen.Zeiiuiifj.

^, I. COKIXTHIAN.S L COKl.N'THIANS 485 everv influential school of criticism, we regard the Pniifine authorship of our Ep. as uniiniieached and aniiiipcachable. 5. St. I'nul first visited Corinth durini,' his first European 'nission (Ac 18'''*). The ciriuiiistances have been stated under COHINTH. In modilication of the view there tjiken, it should lie noted that at any rate the arrival of Timothy and Sihis from Macedonia convinced him that Corinth was to he a great centre of work.

lie ' became engrossed in the word ' (irwflxfo rep X67<(), v.') The vision of TV."- '" had reference rather to alarms arising on the s])ot (1 Co 2") than to any remaining doubt as to his mission to the Corinlliians. Mis earliest converts were made by liis addresses in the sj'na- fogue, and comprised 'Jews and Greeks' (Ac 18^). 'o the former class belonged Crispus ; but the baptism of the household of Stephanas must have been his first conquest (1 Co 16"). S.

and tiaius were probably proselytes (i.e. aefiS/ieyoi). After the arrival of his companions, St. Paul, engrossed in preaching, entrusted the baptism of his converts to them (1 Co 1"- '"). St. I'aul was the first to preach the gospel at Corinth. Hence he describes himself as the planter (1 Co 3'), the first builder (vv.""), the father (•!'") of the Cor. Church. He laid, as its foundation, '.

Jesus Christ' (3"), teaching the significance of His death (2-, 2 Co l'"8") and resur- rection (1 Co 15'-"), of the Eucharist (10""- U-^"). the fundamental principles of the Christian life (3'" 6"- '), and the hope beyond the grave (15'»»' 1", cf. 6'). The composition of the Cor. Church was mainly Gentile, but not without Jews (Ro 16'^', 1 Co7'«9 12"); and heathenish antecedents (1-2- 6") were the cause of most of the troubles of the community.

The Christians of Corinth were of the lower ranks of life (l^"-^ 7"). though there were marked dillciences of wealth among them (11'-'); Gaius and Krastus (I'o IG-^) may be added to Crisjius and Stephanas (above) as persons of higher MK'ial position. Of the numbers of the Cor. Clmrch we cannot form any safe conjecture. St. Paul preached at first in the house of Titius Justus (Ac 18') while residing with Aquila and Pri.scilla (v.')

l*ter (1 Co 16") we hear of an ^kkXtj^io at the house of the latter, which probably implies that the Christians were no longer capable of being con- tained in any one house. In any case, the language of 1 Co 3, 4 suggests continued growth under other teachers after the departure of St. Paul himself. Chief among these was Apollos (Ac 18"-'^). The Acts hints at two lines of his activity at Corinth : edification of the believers ('•"), and successfi.

; con- troversy with Jews (■■", the yip here cannot fairly be held to restrict the 8Coi)e of ori-e/JciXfTo to his success with the Jews). Por both purposes his Alexandrian training was a high qualification. The contrast between his style of preaching and the severe simplicity of St. Paul was laid hold of by frivolous minds as a basis of party spirit {infra, § 7). The date of Apollos' arrival at Corinth is uncertain, except that it precedes St. Paul's arrival at Ephesus (Ac 19').

To Eiihesus, at some time during St. Paul's Tpterla there, Apollos returneil. The remaining points in the history of the Church of Corinth enter into the situation out of which our Ep. arises. Before dealing with this, it is desiiablc to consider the dates. 6. The chronology of St. Paul's life has recently been the subject of renewed investigations, whicli have tended to disturb the scheme which, in its broad features, may be described as in possession of the field previous to 1893.

Among the most important of recent discussions are those of Clemen (Cfiroiifd. il. Pnvl. Driffr., 1893) and of llamsay (.SV. Paul the Traveller, 1895, also in Expositor, .May 1806). A discussion of the questions raised will be found in articles Chronology ok NT, and l'K.sru.^. Here it will suffice to state that the prevalent view, as reiirescnted (e.g.) by Wicscler, Lewin (/•Vw^t.S'.), and Lightfoot (on Ads in Smith DB'-, and Bihlical Essays, p.

223), used the arrival of Pestus in Pales- tine as tlio pivot date for the reconstruction of the period. It was argued, on grounds not to be entered on here (see Festus), that this pivot, though not absolutelj' rigid, j-et oscillated only as between the years A.D. 60 and 61, and that of these two, the year 60 was the mere probably correct. Subtracting, then, the two years of St. Pauls imprisonment at Casarea, we obtained 58 as the year of his last journey from Corinth to Jeru- salem.

As he left Corinth before the Passover (Ac 20'), the three months spent there carried us Ijack to his arrival it Corinth in Nov. 57 (see Corinthians, Second Ep. to, § 6). This, cor- responding as it does with the intention of winter- iuL' at Corinth e.\iiresse<l 1 Co 16', made the spring of 57 the probable date of 1 Co. iloreovLT, if 37 was thu earliest possible dftte for St.

Paul's fscape from Damascus (2 Co 11^-, Ac 9'-i, see Aretas), and 14 years elapsed lietween this and the apostolic conference of Ao I.', identified with that of Gal 2, the latter must have occurred alioul 51. Subtracting;, then, from 57, the date of 1 Co, the Ibree .years (Ac 203*) of his Ephesian ministry, we had 64 a^ the date of St.

Paul's arrival at Ephesus (Ac 191), and three years remained for all the event* of Ac 1(J-18, or hardly eighteen months for his movements before and after the year and a half claimed (Ao isn. IS) by his first sojourn at Corinth. And this residual space of time was certainly none too lartfe for the movements of the ai>oslle which had to be fitted into it.

Now the arj,'ununt of Hanisay, from the days of the week which the data of Ac 2(K'f'' require, in relation to the calendar of the year 67 (Exvox. May IbOO, ' A Fixed Date in tlie Life of St. Paul '), if accepted, pushes back our Epistles by a year. He insists on the absolute loose- ness, amounting; to uselessness, of the pivot date referred to above (a question to be discussed under Fk,stcb), and, identi- fying the conference of Oal 2 with St.

Paul's famine visit (dated by him in 46) to Jerus. (Ac U^o 1'2'-^), pushes pack St. Paul's conversion to the year 32 (.St. Paul the Traofllcr, ch. 14 and note). The latter dat« is too early to satisfy the reference to Arbtas in 2 Co 1P2; while the objec- tions to Ramsay's identification of the conference of Gal 2 seem overwhelming. But (Jalatians rather than our Ep. is the battle, proimd of this controversy, which after all affects the absolute rather than the relative chronoloj^y of the Epp.

to the Corinthians. It may sullice for our purpose to remark that Ramsay's 'fixed date' depends on the twofold a-saumption that St. Paul and his party left Philippi (Ac 20^) on the very morning after the last day of unleavened bread, — a mere matter" of inference, — and that the night on which St. Paul preached at Troa:* was, as Meyer, etc., assume, a Sunday night, not (as Haekett, Conybeare and Howson, etc.)

a Saturday night, — a very dubious point in view of the Jewish phraseology used to denote the day. We do not think, therefore, that the accepted chronology has been shattered by Ramsay's assault. Tltat of Clemen proceeds on far more nuiical lines. Hero again the battle-ground is ultimately the Ep. to the Oalatians. But wo may sketch the outlines of Clemen 8 construction as bearing on our Ejiistle. Accepting tiO aa the date for Festus, and coiiso- quentlv '»S as that of St.

Paul's arrest, he yet brings St. Paul to Jerusalem (Ac 20-2121) jn 54, where the conference of Gal 2 is inserted ; between 64 and 68 the apostle is lost to our ken ; the rebuke of Cejihas at Antioch and the Ep. to the Gal belong to this nebulous interval. The winter of 63-54 was spent at Cor., the previous summer in the evangelization of Illyricum (Ro Ifi'**), the winter 62-63 at Nicopolis (Tit 312) ; in the summer of 62 the apostle left Ephesus, where he had been since the lieginning of 50.

This is the period of our Epp. to the Corinthians, which may be conveniently rtnumberea as follows; a.h. 50, early spring, lit tftlrr (that of 1 Co 6») ; later s]iring, 2n<f letter { = 1 Co) ; 51, summer, Titus carries to Corinth the Srrf letter (2 Co 9) ; then, after a revolt in the Cor. Church, and a painful visit of the apostle to Corinth, comes a *th (painful) letter ( = 2 Co 10-131"); lastly, when St.

Paul has already reached Macedonia, in the summer of 6'2, the 6(/l letter ( = 2 Co 1-S» 13ll-end). (On the above details compare art. 2CoR[NTI1Ianb, §84(.'(). 8) The vision referred to in 2 Co 122 is that at the conversion, which thus falls 14 veani before 61, i.e. in 37, two years after the crucifixion (A.D. 35). To discuss this scheme in detail Is out of place here.

The present writer, holding that the Pauline chapters of the Acta give a tnistwnrthv consecutive outline of the apostle's life ; that Ac 15 is meant to describe the conference of Gal 2, and thai tho liiatus left between A.I>. 64 and 68, with the dislocation of the sequence of events in Ac 2in-40, amounts lo a failure of the entire scheme, is not predisposed in favour of the proposeil re- adjustment of the chronology of our Epistles.

In particular, that 1 Co comes at the beginning rather than at the cnil of the Kpbesian ministry of St. Paul, is not only contrary to the indi cations of Ac 101.21 20*, a consideration which woulil weigh lightly with CIcmon, but Is contrary to the spirit of 1 Co 4if , <ii>il 486 I. CORINTHIANS I. CORINTHIANS especially 16. That 168-9 are anything but natural In the closing period of the 'Epbeaian sojourn^ is surely a desperate arg^ument.

The time has not arrived, then, to abandon the year 57, and the latter end of St. Paul's three years' ministry at Ephesus, as the date of 1 Co, unless, indeed, it be held (as Godet and others maintain, but without conclusive reasons) that it must have preceded 2 Co by at least a complete year (see 2 Corinthians, § 6V 7. The history of the Cor. Church after the departure of Apollos for Ephesus is knoA\-n to ns solely from the two Epp. to the Corinthians.

That communications passed from time to time between St. Paul and this Church is only what we might expect from our general knowledge of St. Paul's life. In one letter, written not very long Defore 1 Co, he had had occasion to warn the Corinthians not to allow themselves to associate {(rvrafaijdyi'vffScu) with fornicators. This warning, in view of the conditions of the place (CORINTH), does not indicate circumstances or special urgency there.

But we gather that there was a tendency in Corinth to treat the apostle's command as impracticable in its severity (1 Co 5""") ; the tone of public opinion in the Cor. Church was omin- ously low (cf. 1 Co 6"'^) ; and when a case of exceptional repulsiveness occurred, it was treated by tbe community with a tolerance amounting almost to levity (o'"'). How St. Paul heard of this, of the litigious recourse to heathen tribunals (6"-), and of other matters for blame (11' 15'), we do not know.

Speaking broadly, these were all anxieties of a kind likely to occur, in a more or less acute form, in any community whose Christianity was recent, while the heathen in- stincts of its members were bred in the bone and not to be overcome except by time. It was somewhat diti'erent AWth the (rx'^/uiTa or dissensions which occupy the early chapters of the Epistle. Partly no doubt, and specially as regards the use of the names of St.

Paul and Apollos as party watchwords, they are explicable by the frivolous and excitable temper of the people. The Epistle of Clement shows us that forty years later than St. Paul's time, although the party watchwords of the year 57 have dis- appeared, the tendency to faction is still at work (S§ 1, 47, etc.) In communities of this kind, as Renan observes {St. Paul, p. 373 f.), 'divisions, parties, are a social necessity ; life would seem dull without them.'

' The talent of Apollos turned all their heads.' The contrast between the Alex- andrian methods of Apollos and the simpler spiritual preaching of St. Paul, would, in fact, furnish this tendency with an irresistible tempta- tion. But in Corinth we are in the presence of a more serious and far, reaching plienomenon. Apart from the question of the personal presence there at any time of one of the older apostles (see below), it is clear from the data of our Ep.

, combined with those of 2 Co (§ 4 [e] there), that Corinth was the scene of an anti-Pauline mission identical in its source and aims, though naturally diflering in tactics, with that which troubled the Churches of Galatia. At Corinth the demand for ciroimcision would appear to have been dropped or held back ; the point of attack was the apostolic mission of St. Paiil (1 Co 9"-), whose conduct and position had become the object of suspicious criti- cism {ifaKpivetp, 1 Co 4' 9' etc.) The .

Judaic movement against St. Paul is probably respon- sible for the two watchwords iyu di Kri<pS.- &yui Si Xpiirrov. This is clearly the case with the former (cf. Hort, Judaistic Christ ianitt/, p. 96 f.) 'K7U) ii Ki](pa must have been, in the first in.stance, the utterance of n person who knew St. Pet«r by his Pal. name. Such persons must have found their way to Corinth, and attached to themselves par- tisans, whether Gentile or Jewish, who were im- pressed by the prior claim of St.

Peter to apostolic rank, or perh.ops repelled by the lengths to which emancipation from Jewish prejudices had carried some of the Christians at (jorinth (1 Co 8"-). It does not follow that, in order to say iyu di Ktj^S, it was necessary to be a personal pupil of St. Peter. The name of Cephas must have become a aouse- hold word in every Church visited by the Pal.

propagandists ; there is nothing in 1 (5o 1", even combined with 9°, to justify us in inferring, as a 2nd cent, bishop of Corinth inferred (iJijnys. ap. Euseb. HE ii. 25), that St. Peter had actuady visited Corinth and shared with St. Paul the claim to rank as founder of the Church there. St. Paul's silence would in that case suggest a more painful relation between himself and the partisans of Cephas than we need otherwise assume.

He blames the partisans of Cephas indeed, but neither more nor less than he blames those of Apollos and of himself ; there is nothing to suggest any special hostility between St. Paul and any one of the three. This would equally apply to the fourth party, whose watchword was iyii Si Xpiarov, had we only our present Ep. to go by. But on them the second Ep. throws a peculiar light, which reduces the other three parties to a comparatively unimportant rank.

It is true that the Cephas- party must have been under the influence of the Judaizing propaganda ; but the second Ep. shows that it is not among them (cf. 1 Co 3-) that we are to look for its extreme and dangerous par- tisans. In considering the ' Caj-ttt-party,' it will be needless to di9CUfl» the endless sui^estions that have been made apart from the li^ht derived from 2 Co. That iyi 3t Xpirrou were the words of St. Paul himself, or of Christians who formed a party against party spirit, etc.

, are Wews for which the reader must consult the Commentaries (see also Rabiger, Krit. Ur*t«j suchuiigen Hber den Inhalt der beiden Briefe an die Kor. Gerneinde, etc., 1886. RaVji;^er denies the existence of a Christ-party). Quite certainly there were men in Corinth who put forward the name of Christ as a party watchword, as others put forward that of Cephas, Apollos, or St. Paul. It is instructive to note the absolute contrast between the i/uui it Xpie-rov of 323 (cf. 1523 etc.)

where the apostle asserts to XfiirTpv uymt as true of all, and the i>i it \piincZ of 11"- where he stamps its falsehood (v. 13 *ifl Christ portioned off ' to any) as the exclusive claim of some. There were, then, those at Corinth who falsely claimed a monopoly of Christ, and the renewed repudiation of this claim in 2 Co 10' lets in a flood of light upon their position. The claim stands in tlie closest connexion with the dispar- agement of St. Paul's apostolic rank.

He bad not, like the Twelve, known Christ personally ; while his witness of Christ, therefore, was second- hand, theirs was direct ; they were, and he was not, appointed to the apostolate by Christ Him- self. This contention was due in the first in- stance, no doubt, to newcomers at Corinth (2 Co Ijn. 23j^ but appears to have imposed upon some native members of the Church (1 Co 1'" f/caoTo? V1J.UIV). This view of the matter is clinched by St. Paul's depreciation of a knowledge of Chri.

st ' after the flesh ' (2 Co 5'«). By the time the second Ep. was written, this agitation had grown to far more alarming dimensions than we can trace in our present letter (see CORINTHIANS, Second Ep. to the, § 4 [e]). While fully recognizing the nature and import- ance of these trxi<rfJJiTa, we must not exaggerate their inten.sity by sup[)Osing that they constituted ' schisms ' in the modein sense of the word. They were dissensions within the society, not separately organized bodies. Our Ep.

presupposes through- out a corporate life, impaired indeed, but not destroyed, by these dissensions, and the other burning questions which- existed at Corinth seem to have had no party relation to the <Txi^^ulTa — I. CORIXTIllA.NS I. CORINTHIANS 487 in some cases tliey may have mitigated their iDtensity by causing cross-divisions. The attempt has indeed been made to connect each of the several evils touched upon in 1 Co with one or other of the parties (e.g.

in the work of Rabiger mentioned above), but this entirely outruns the evidence, and assigns to the parties a too funda- mental significance in the life of the Cor. Church. That the enlightened persons, wlio went too far in their emancipation from prejudice about elSw- XiSi/To, were not under Judaizinj' influence is no doubt pretty certain ; but that does not connect them without more ado with the ' party ' of St. Paul or Apollos ; that the th-^s of 15" embody a thoroughly Or.

prejudice does not prove that Apollos was their watchword. Nothmg in the morbid exaltation of the gift of tongues (14) be- trays (even in the light of Ac 2" 11") the Petrine partisan. 8. Tidings of the (rxdr/uiTo reached St. Paul for the first time through some persons described by him as ol X\6i;5 (1"). These were probably, by the analogy of St. Paul's language elsewhere, slaves. \V nether their mistress was a Christian, and where she lived, are uncertain points (Chloe).

Stephanas, who had a household of his own ( I'" 16"), can hardly have been one of o! X\67)j. Stephanas and his companions must have reached St. Paul after Chloe's people ; they to some extent allayed the disquieting impression which the news of the latter had produced (16""). Whether they were the carriers of a letter from Corinth is not quite clear. Such a letter, in any case, reached the apostle about this time.

He begins to answer it in 7' ; its contents may be inferred to be un- connected with the matters dealt with in 1-6 — even, probably, with the misunderstood injunc- tion of the apostle in b"'-. The Corinthians con- sulted him about marriage and its problems (7), probably about fiSaXoBirra (8-10), about the veiling of women in public worship (IP'), and not im- probably about Tvcv/iaTiKd ; the Xoyia (16") was verj' likely another matter upon which they con- sulted St.

Paul— probably in reply to some pre- vious indication of^ his wish that something should be done for the purpose. Before the receipt of the letter from Corinth, as it would seem, but after the arrival of Chloe's people, St. Paul had instructed Timotliv, whom he was cuiiiloying for a mission to Macedonia (Ac 19-^), to proceed after- wards to Corinth and endeavour to restore dis- cipline (4" IB'"- "). But the task required a strong man, and St. Paul is evidently anxious as to Timothy's reception.

And as an opportunity, probably the Cor. letter and the visit ot Stcplian.is ind his party, offered itself, shortly after Timothy's departure, for tlie dispatch of a letter, tlie apostle penned the Epistle before us. After a preamble of guarded but sincere general commendation (1*'), he deals (l"'-0) with the more urgent matters for blame: the a-xlafuiTa (1-4), the case of incest (.5), litigation before heathen courts (6'""), and immor- ality generally (6'""). He then takes up the Cor.

letter, and answers its inquiries about marriajj;e in general (7''), the duties of various classes in relation to marriage ('■**), and specially the duty of the unmarried, or rather of the parents of virgins, as regards the question of marrying (^o-w).

Then follows the difficult question of the eiSu\6- t>vr„, which brings out the principle that privilege is to be exercised only subject to considerations of the higher expediency (8-10) ; to exercise it with- out regard to this, leads men to overstep its lawful limits UO"'*"). Next follows a series of matters re- lating to public worsliip (U'-H): first, the veiling of women (U'''"'); then the disorders connectea with the Eucharist (11"-"); then (12-14) the ir«i/- iMTmi.

The principle whicli emerges here is closely analogous to that whicli determines the discussion of the (iSuMOvra. Chapter 13 occupies the same place here as does ch. 9 in the former subject : only the principle of forbearance from privilege eiiiorced in 9 IS here carried to the higher and deeper ground of aydiTTi, itself the greatest of the Spirit's gifts. We then reach the only properly doctrinal subject dealt with ex profcsso in the Epistle, that of the Resurrection.

Our account of this must be a little more full. The question arises from the denial, on the part of 'some' (15"), of the future resur- rection of the body. St. Paul's rej)ly is, that if Christ has risen, — if the tnith of His resurrection is part of the gospel common to St. Paul and the Twelve (15'-"),— then the dead in Christ will rise also. The denial of the tik^s, ' some,' extended to the latter or consequent proposition, not to its antecedent. St.

Paul's argument is (""'"), that their denial of the consequent truth overthrows the antecedent, viz. the resurrection of Christ. On the other hand (™'^), if the latter is a certain truth of the gospel, the resurrection of the dead in Christ, denied by the nvit, follows as effect from cause. This is supplemented (2*-28) by an explanation which puts the resurrection of the dead into context with the return of Christ and the consummation of all things.

Two practical and corroboratory arguments {■^■^) complete the refutation. Then follows the answer to the ob- jection, founded on the nature of the resurrection body ("■'*), issuing in the triumphant vindication of the hope of a resurrection as the basis of quiet Christian perseverance. St. Paul now turns to purely epistoliry matters : directions as to the \oyla (IG'"'') lead to a statement of his plans of travel {''').

Thee follows a recommendation of Timothy ('"•")> * message on behalf of Apollos ('-), a brief generai exhortation ("• '^), a commenda- tion of Stephanas and his household, and an ex- pression of thankfulness for his presence, with Fortunatus and Achaicus, at Epliesus ('"■"). Salu- tations (1"-'^) form the close, the solemn anathema of V.-' comes in abruptly in their midst. That it is directed against the Judaizing agitators (cf. 2 Co 11'^"") is not inijirobable, but can hardly be proved.

Such is the general plan of the letter. Its con- tents can be exhibited more in detail by the aid of a table. 9. Aruilijsi of the Epistle. I. EPlBTOLARy iNTIlOnUCTlON (ll). A. TiiK Salutatio.s (1-3). (ae. The writer 0) I fi. the readers (5); 5-. theL'reetinK(3).) B. PRKAMni.B (■-»). at. The apostle's thankfulness for the work of (frace at Corinth, eapecially in regard to Xtytt and y*^tts (^-"i). $.

The end 10 which this should tend, and which will not fail for lack of anything on God's part (7-9)t U. UnoKNT Matters for Rlamk (I'O-fl^X A. Party SrniiT(li»-l'Ji). (1) Tlie facts stated O"")- (2) Tlie facts characterized (1H7»). [Christ degraded to the leadership of some ; Paul exalted as if the saviour of any.) 0. Party spirit Jur^jH the euentiai nature qf the Chris- tian tfachinil (1' 1^3). (1) The gospel naa no room for nfim (lo the lower aense, f. i^«i,)(l"l»-20).

This shown by (n) the facts in general (tS-38) ; (ft) the histAjry of the growth of tlie Coriiilliian Church ; (36 31) ; and l)V (c) the way In which the aposlle founded it(2">). (2) The tfospcl is »•«■« In the true sense (»■. DmS) (2»-3<). (a) This wisdom hidden from the world, but revealed to the saints (J""'). (ft) The Spirit ol God tbe vehicle of Ita revelation (101^.

(o) Hence it Is revealed to spiritual i}^\ but not to unspiritual ^1- "i), nor, exce])t in a rudimentary fonn, to unnpe hearers (:fl-), y. Party gjiirit forijcts thf eseenliat character oj tht C/trijitian teaclirr (36-4HI). (1) All alike, whatever their ministry, are but secondary to Omi, who detcnnines the result (-*•). 488 L CORINTHIANS L CORINTHIANS (8) This In no way diminishes their several responsibility (8b- 1&). Paul the (planter v.

^, father 4i6) founder, others the after -builders (10, waterera 6, guardiana 4^^). The Day wiU test the work of all alike. ^) The temple of God destroyed by those who practic- allv deny the above truths by 'glorying in men* (1621). (4) All teachers, like all that enters into the existence and experience of the Christian, are part of God's gift to nim, means to the one end, God in Christ (6) The Christian teacher to be regarded as an underling {irrr.

piTYi) of Christ, to whose judgment alone he is ultimately subject (•li'). (8) The Corinthians have only too good cause to look down on the apostles from a higher level (46-13); yet the apostle's aim is not to crush by sarcasm, but to reclaim them as their father (i-i«). 9. Spilogue on the party spirit. The mission of Timothy, and the coming visit of Paul (17-21). B. Thk Moral Sca^ndal (fiiiS). m. The facts (i). fi. Fal.se attitxule of the Corinthians (3, of. *>. y.

The proper way to deal with the cane (^-ly. Cl) The i'aschal metaphor of the leaven (^b-S). (2) A repetition, with removal of an objection, of ft former injunction on the subject (''IS). C LlTIOATIOX EKFORB THB UNRIOHTEOUS (G^-^'). ThiS — m. Unworthy of the eternal destiny of Chritstians (1-). fi. Speaks ill for the wisdom (&■ t>), but still worse for the moral tone, of the community C-). y.

The injustice, or unrighteousness, thus shown to exiflt among them is part of a heathen past (^il, trans- itional, working the argument back to B). D. Fornication. •. li'ot a legitimate use of the body (12. 13), but fi. A denial of the true destiny of the body (iSb-20). (1) This destiny described (i2b:u), 12) Fornication desecrates the limbs of Christ (15-17). (3) Fornication, beyond any other sin, assails (the eternal destiny of) the body (18. 19) in which we are to glorify God (^0). III.

Reply to the Corinthian Lbttrr : Makriaqb and rrs Problems (7). A. Preamble (i-7). While the single state Is preferable, marriage is meant for some, and its obligations are to be maiiitaineti. B. Advice to Difi'ERBNT Classbs. m. The unman-ied (^•^). ^. Those u'ho ' have inarried ' (as Christians) G"- ")• y. The rest {i.e. those who have been converted as married persons) (}'-'^). (1) General principle ; existing relations to be loyally maintained (i2. 13^ cf. 17.5».

24) [a reason for this, as regards family life, v.l]. 4S) This general principle not to enslave a Christian to union with a reluctant heathen partner (i^" ^^) ' but (8) The general principle to be observed where possible (17). U) This principle is the same as is to govern all relations of life. (a) Circumcision or uncircumcision (l*^). (fc) Slavery 0" 23 ; this does not forbid an opportunity of emancipation being accepted, ^^). I Virgins (25^). (1) St.

Paul's opinion tentative, but he decidedly advises celibacy (25- Si). (2) Reasons for this : (o) The general principle (y. 1) makes this way (S'-SS), especially (Jl>} In view of the precariousness of all earthly relations, given the 'shortness of the time' (■jat> 35) ; the unmarried are freer to serve the Lord undividedly. (8) This applied to the duty of the parent of a virgin (36^38). (4) The same principle applies to widows (39- *0). IV. Food OFFERED TO Idols (8-111). A.

General Principlks : to act on mere knowledge not right (8). m. Knotvtedae does not guarantee truth of instinct (i-). fi. The truth about idols (-6). y. This truth not equally grasped by all (^-^^y. (1) Some, influenced by association of ideas, cannot eat without sin C). (2) No one sins by abstaining (S). (3) The enliirhtened may by eating injure the weak (^-i*). B. Tbe orxat Principle that of Forbearanob in view of the higher expediency (9). a. The Apostolic position (l"^).

^^^ rights (<-l2») to main- tenance, of St. Paul (13- 1* a supplementary corrobora- tion). fi. His forbearance to exercise these rights (i^b. 15-18). y. His motive in this : (I923ii) to save othere. (23b-27) to save himself. C. The above Principlrs ai'Plird(IOI-II'). «. The example of the Israeli/es warns us of the danger, even to ourselves, of presuming on privilege (lOi i'-^). fi. The danger of idolatry, for all their enllghtenmenb, a real one to the Corinthians (13 s^).

(1) There is no necessity to 3'ield (13). (E) The partaking of a sacrificial feast (cf. 81") ia an act of idolatry, as is evident (}*• i^) from ihe parallels of (a) The Christian Eucharist, a partaking of the blood- ehedding of Christ (iti- 17). (6) The Jewisii sacrifices, to eat of which is to partake of the altar (IS). (8) Result ; to eat ceremonially of ilimkidvrm totally forbidden 0^'^). y. Practical rules for other cases.

(1) Preliminary repetition of the principle of the hlghei expediency (23-24). (2) Where the history of the food is not forced on youi attention, it may be freely eaten (^- '-*). (8) Where tbe history of the food is forced on your attention, better abstain for the sake of others (27 '2iia)^ and to avoid exposing yourselves to mis- construction (29b. 30. 32). <4) Epilogue (-ii-lli). The glory of God and the higher expediency to be your guides, as thej' are mine. V.

Matters relating to Public Worship (U^-U). 112. O'encral commendatory jyreamble to this section, A, The Veiling op Women (U^iS). «. Principle oj organic subordination (3V jS. The covering or uncovering the heaa <k recognition of this prinmple (■!'') y. Women not lowered by this (ii- 13). if rom nature (i-*")' from the custom of the Churches (16). B, Disorders connected with the Eicuarist (1117-34). •. The assemblies of the Church marked by dissensions (1719). fi.

They substitute their own feast for the Lord'e (M-«X y. Unseemliness of the above (^^ (1) In the spirit displaved (22). fthe history 0^25), and of /o\ T ^ tJ the significance C^- 27) of the eucharistic W "» ▼!«» oi-j ^(,^ (which are the central feature of \_ the xvpiaxi>i 2fiT*ovX (I) Precautions for worthy, and dangers of unworthy, reception (2y-32). (4) Conclusion : the feast not to be used to satisfy hunger ; other directions postponed till the apostle's arrival (33.

34), C, The Spiritual Gifts (13-14). •. General principles : The purpose of these gifts forbids their use as ends-in-themselves (12). (1) A caution necessitated by the reader's heathen ante cedents : the nature of the utterance the criterion of its divine origin (i^). (2) Diversity of these gifts, but all from one source, and for one aim — the hi;,'her expediency (^H). (3) The organic unity of the body of Christ (i27) /to envy tliose who have gifts which / \ 1? Ki^ J we lack (i^ 20).

W i-orDias ua-i ^ despise those who lack giSta which l^ we have (2i). (6) Implies organic interdependence of all (22-27). (4) Church organization and functions based on these principles (2^-30). (Transition to (,3) (31).] fi. Charity, the greatest gift of all, the principle de- termining the use of ail the rest (123i 13). (1) No gift, miraculous or moral, of any value without charity (13). (2) Charity, its nature and pre-eminence (*-i3). (a) Charitv described (4-7).

{b) Charity outlasts prophecy, tongues, knowledge, all of which belong to our childhood, i.e. our present dim and partial vision of truth (8-12). (c) Conclusion, of the three lasting gifts, charity the chief (13). y. Practical application. Spiritual gifts to be valued only as means to edification (14). (1) Prophecy preferable to tongues (125).

(a) Prophecy edifies »U present, tongues the speaker only (i-«X '" musical instruments (6) The inutility of tongues illustrated by analogy {of mus of hu (911). uman language («) Consequent practical superiority of worship ' with the understanding' O!^). (d) Practical application of the above («>»). (2) Concluding directions (a) as to the exercise of rnt^ (d) as to the silence of women (.14 30). (8) Epilogue : (a) Gainsavere rebuked (3?- 88), (6) Eesult'psi.-ll)). VI.

Tub Rbhurbbction of the Dead (15). A. las Ke8i;bkection of Ciiiust as essbntial Articlx opthb GOSI'EL(>")- ^ _„ •. Th' creed oriirinallv delivered to the Corinthians (!-•). j3. WitnrMes tn the resurrection o/ Chritt from Cepha to St. Paul (i»). r. PautatapmUe »>») L CORINTHIANS L CORINTHIANS 489 ). ThU truth eoininon to all thf ajtostilf (11). B. It CilKIHT IB RIHB.S, TKB I'KAD IN CHRIST BUALL RI8X(13^). «.

To deny the coiueifttriU uperfhrutcs the antecedent (l^^^X (1) The denial of a redurrtn:tioQ of the duul by 'some Kmon;; you (12). (2) What this denial involvM : (a) The falsification of apostoUo preachlngr and of Christian faith (U-i"»). (6) The destruction of (Christian hope ("•►'»). 0. The resrirrection of ChrUt carries with it that ofthote who are Christ's (■^^). (1) Christ leads the way in resurrection M Adam did in death C'>'> '•2).

(2) The resurrection fn relation to the conBumuiatioD of Christ's mediatorial reipn ('^ '^). il. Resurrection of Christ. 2. Return of Christ and resurrection of His people. 3. The end, or re-delivery of the kinirdom to God (■»■ ■■"■). (6) Before the end must come the subjugation of all powers, all enemies to Christ, and, last of ail, that of death («»-»')• (•) The end it-self, and subJectioQ of the Son to the Father (2"- •*)). 9% Siiiiidiary arguments: (a) Baptism for the dead (29).

(t) The motive of the Christian life (»«). 0. A!«8WBR TO Objections : Tns Body or tub Risen (»«>). a. One kind of bodu is sown, another is raised up (3^^^X (1) The seed differs from the fruit (^^). (2) Flesh differs from flesh, heavenly bodies from earthly (3SH2). (3) The spiritual body differs from the natural as the second Adam from the first (^-*^). 0, The change from the one to the other, at the cominf^ of Christ, ^^-ilJ destroy the strength and sting of death (60-M). y.

Byilogue : (1) Sin and the law (M^. (2) Our victorj- in Christ (671 <S) Re«ult(»«)i Vn. Epistolary Cosctrsiox (16). A. Directions /or the \tyi a. (}-i). B. Personal plans of the apostle (*-9), C. Personal notices (lO-'s). •. The mission of Timothy (">■ "). f. Apollos (12). ». A closing exhortation interjected (H. M). t. SU'plianas (15-18). (1) His household (I'-")- (2) His mission to Elihesus (!'• 18). J). Concluxion of the Epistle. «. SaluUtions (11^21). fi.

Anathema against false brethren (^ >. (including benediction (23. **). 10. Importance of the Episti-e.— The above gynoj'sis is enough to show the richness and di- versity of the light thro\vn by our letter upon the spirit and circumstances of tne apostolic age.

In it8 fulness of light and shadow it vividly repro- duces the life of a typical Gentile-Christian com- munity, seethin" with the beginnings of that age- long warfare of the highest and lowest in man, which constitutes the history of the Church of Christ from the time when His fire was kindled on the earth down to this day.

To do justice to the manifold lessons of the Epistle would require a commentary ; but without trespassing beyond the limits of this article, a few salient points may be noted. Pastoral character. — The two Epistles to the Cor- inthians are the most pastoral of the Epistles. Eor details of pastoral work and organization, indeed, wo CO to the letters to Timothy and Titus.

IJut for the deep-seated principles, for the essential relations between pastor and peoiile, for the conception of the apostolic oflice, and the nature of apostolic antliority, these Epp. are our primary source. The questions touched ujion in our Ep. furnish a fair sample of the ditliculties of Church govern- ment ; and as each is taken up in turn some deep- lying principle siirings naturally to the niioslle's lips, and is brought to hear with all its power upon the matter in hand.

The letter is unique as an oliject-lesson In the bishopric of souls. II. Doctrinal importance. — It is impossible within our limits to do more than glance at the main points of interest, (a) The Ejiistle bears fewer traces than 2 Co of the great controversy of the period to which it belongs. The only express reference to the subject is 15^ ' the strength of sin is the law ' (cf. Ko 7'"^). But the foundatioii-.

stone of his preacliing in Corinth, ' Jesus Christ, ami that crucified' (2" S'"-"), is the root of the apo-stle's whole mind and thought on the subject, (b) The doctrine of the Person of Christ, indissolubly cor- related with that of His work, is touched upon 8", where the 5i oO to irdpra anticipates Col l'"- The redelivery of the kingdom (l,'), '-**) by the glorified Christ, and His final 'subjection' to Ilia rather, is a thought not elsewhere brought out (but see I Co 3'^ S", lio US').

With regard to the pre-existcnce and human nature of Christ, the passage IS"''' is of great importance, and has given rise, from Baur onwards, to startling inter- pretations (Pfleiderer, Paulinijim, Eng. tr. i. 13911'.; Schmiedel in loc.) (c) The Holy Spirit (2""'- and 12) is the vehicle of all true enlightenment and receptivity to revealed truth (2'- '■'), and of all the Xapia/iara which enable Christians to live their corporate life.

The language of 12" involves the personality of the Spirit (see further the art. on 2 Corinthians, § 7). The Spirit is a,ssumed to bo the active power in bai)tism, and to be present in all baptized persons (12" tj") ; though this is ideally rather than actually true of all (3"). ((/) With regard to the sacraments, baptism and its signilicance are touched upon in the [lassages just mentioned. It was aduiinistered in the name of Christ (1", cf. Ac 19').

An enig- matical practice of baptizing ' for the dead ' is referred to (15-") ; the conte.xt (inrfp avrCip) forbids us to regard this as merely an aspect of ordinary baptism. On the doctrine of the Eucharist a side- light is thrown in lu"'". Tlie reference is intro- duced to illustrate the principle that to eat the sacrifice is to take part in the sacrificial act. The sacrifice here is that of the cross, oll'ered by Christ ; the Eucharist has a .

sacrificial character analogous to that of the Jewish or heathen sacrificial meal, and like them has the efi'ect of establishing a com- munion between the worshipper and his God. The reference involves the belief on St. Paul's part that the body of Christ is eaten (cf. 1 !-''••-«). In what sense this is so, St. Paul does not define, (e) With reference to the resurrection (see above, § 8), that of Christ is the premise of St. Paul's argu- ment in IS''". In vv.»-* we have the germ of a creed.

In vv.°-' we have the earliest record of the post-resurrection appearances of the Ix>rd ; v." is of special importance. That He rose with a iriJi^La. TrvivixaTiKliv is implied in v.""- The whole argu- ment is addressed, not to the general resurrection of all men, but to that of ol XpiffroO, the xeKoi- IxTjiiivoi, whose rising again is the ell'ect of their being quickened in Christ. From other places we know that St.

Paul taught a future life and judg- ment for all, good and bad alike ; but (except in the hypothetical dirii\oi'To of v.") this chaiiter has no word applicable to the latter. (/) Eschatology in general the Ep. touches upon 7"' '^ 15", whence we see that the apostle still expected tlie early return of Christ, and especially in 15-^'^ (see analysis, § 9). In this latter pa.>isage the coming of Christ ajipears as the last and final act of His reign, immediately usherinj; in the end.

At His coming Christ will, liy raising His dead to in- coriujition, destroy death (v."), and thus complete the subjugation or all inimical powers (2"). Then all is really for the redelivery of the kingdom, that God maybe all in all. This seems incoinpatiMo with the millennial reign after the resui reetioii of the just, which some commentators (Godet, etc.) would read into our pa.s.sage from the Apocalyjise. 12. The Christian life. — The whole Eji.

is 'an inexhaustible mine of Christian thougUt and life.' Nowhere else in the NT is there a more many-sided 490 I. CORINTHIANS I. CORIXTHIANS embodiment of the imperishable principles and instincts which should insjjire each member of the body of Christ for all time. With regard to personal life, it may be noted that the ascetic instinct wliich has ever asserted itself in the Christian Church finds its first utterance in 7 ('• "■ ■■" diXu, yojj.1^01 Sn KdXoK, etc.)

; but coupled with a solemn and loftj' insistence (oiV ^70; d\X4 6 kiV'os) on the obligations of married life, and founded on the simple ground of the higher expediency. This latter principle (ri a viiifi4poy) is the keynote of the ethics of the Epistle. The whole content of life is to the Christian but means to a supreme end ; free in his sole responsibility to God (3-' 2" KP), the spiritual man limits his own freedom (6'- 9") for the building up of others and the discipline of self (9^"''").

The corporate life of the Church is reflected in our Epistle as nowhere else in NT (see Weizsacker, Ap. Zeit. pp. 567-605, Eng. tr. ii. 24611"., for a careful and interestinwdiscussion, mainly on the data of our Epistle). vVe note especially the development of discipline, of organization, and of worship.

With regard to discipline, the leading passage is 5'"-, where &re described, not indeed the actual proceedings against the immoral person, but those which might and ought to have been carried out. St. Paul sees the Corinthian Church assemble ; he himself is with them in spirit ; the power of the Lord Jesus is in their midst. In the name of the Lord Jesus they expel the offender, 'deliver him to Satan for the destruction of his fleoh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.'

We have here the beginning of ecclesi- astical censures, inflicted by the community as a whole, and it is not surprising in the apostolic age (1 Co ll*", Ac 5'"-) to find physical suflering associated with the spiritual penalty. Such an aesembly as St. Paul here pictmes could, a. fortiori, dispose of such matters of personal rights as should arise (6''°5'-). The organization of the Cor. Churcl) is e^ddently in a very early stage.

We hear of no bishop, presbyter,ordeacon(contrastPhl'),but of prophets and teachers, as the ranks immediately following the apostles. This is in remarkable con- formity with what we hear of at Antioch (Ac 13'), and its correspondence with the lists given in other Epistles is too close to be accidental. The follow- ing list compares the data of 12-''- with those of Ilo 12«", Eph 4" :— 1. etrirroXai (Co, Eph). 2. a-Cftf^Tai (Co, Eph, -b'cB Ro). (•iayyiAjff-T/ (Eph) reifAtint (Eph) Sis.««.

;« (Ro)i. I. iiidriutU, (Co, Eph, -mt Ro) [wctfixxa^iu^ (Ho) iuvaiuiii, .a^lAATa (Kph)] «fTtX*;-4'('f (Co) [uiTahiicu( (Ro)] Kvfiiptv.irtts (Co) [ir^trrdftAtot (Bo)] [iJj;i. (Ro)) _ ylMJ y>Jrfffiir (Co). These lists are evidently not to be regarded as statistical, and their variations are clearly due to the unstudied spontaneity with which each enumeration is made.

All the more significant, then, is it that ' prophets ' everywhere take rank next after the apostles, while ' teachers,' who stand high in all these lists, are the only other class common to all. In our Epistle these three classes alone are expressly as.signed an order, 'first,' 'second,' 'third.'

To interpret these facts would take us beyond our limits, but it is worth noting that the prophetic gift is not strictly limited to a class, but potentially belongs to all (I430-3J) That administrative gifts ((cu/SEpviio-f't) come 80 low, perhaps implies that they are still voluntary (cf. tne rpoicTi/xevot of Ro). 1 o organize the \oyla (16'") the presence of Titus was required (2 Co 8"). The ivoiKoSo/xoOyTti or TnuSaywyol of 3'" 4'», who, like Apollos (3«), carried on the work begun by St.

Paul at Corinth, were therefore prob- ably ' prophets and teachers' ; but the Ep. makes little reference to them (perhaps 16'", cf. 1 fh 5'^'-). Public worship is the subject of a long section ol the Epistle (see analysis, § 9). At some ^/ckXtjitIoi, ISidrai (possibly unbaptized persons) might be present (H'"-^) ; this would not be at the KvpiaKbn SuTvov. The ' Amen ' is in use as the response to prayer or praise (14").

The discussion 11-- would suggest that women might, under certain con- ditions, pray or prophesy in public ; but 14" shows that the apostle was merely holding in reserve a total prohibition, at any rate as regards speaking iv iKKX-ijcrif. Otherwise, the liberty of propliesyina belonged to all ; the utterances were to be tested (14'-), but the test was simply the character of the utterance (12'"-). Prayer or praise iy 7X010-^7; (see Tongues) was a marked feature of public worship, but St.

Paul insists on its inferiority to prophecy. Sunday is mentioned as a day for settin" apart alms (16°), and was therefore probably a day for common worship ; but this is not expressly stated. To come together for common worship constituted an {KKKriaia (11"). It is possible that assemblies for prophecy and teaching (14-*) were distinct from those held els rb ipayely (11^). This was the case apparently in Pliny's time (see Weizsacker, Apost. Zeitalter, p. 568 f.)

The purpose of the latter assembly was to break the bread and bless the cup of the Lord. In ll"-" we have the lonu classicus for the Eucharist of the apostolic age. Two views may be referred to which appear to be erroneous. One, represented, for example, by Beet in his commentary on the passage, is founded on the abuse censured in v.' (cf.**), that ' each one taketh before other his own supper,' thereby destroying the character of the meal as a ' I.ord s Supper.'

If, it is argued, previous consecration of the bread and wine by the wpoeaTw, and reception at his hands, had been an essential of the Eucharist then, as we find it to be in the age of Justin (Apol. i. § 65), the abuse in question could not have occurred ; and St. Paul's remedy would have been ' wait foi the consecration,' not ' wait for each other ' (v.*^). This argument a.ssumes, firstly, a departure from the procedure of Christ in institut- ing the sacrament, which is quite incredible.

That in carrying out His command, toCto iroieirf, the apostolic Churches omitted precisely the actions which accompanied His words, and that the pre- sence of those actions in Justin's Eucharist is due to a reversion, not to continuous repetition, is im- probable to the last degree. The argument is really due to a second erroneous assumption that ' the Lord's Supper' in v.^ 'can be no other tl.an the bread and the cup of the Lord in v."

' This assumption is a reaction from the anachronism of introducin'' the Agape of later times* to explain the passage. The ' Lord's Supper ' is not the Eucharist proper, still less the Agape, but the entire re- enactment of the Last Supper, with the euchar- istic acts occurring in the course of it, as tliev do in the paschal meal of the sj'noptic (iospels.

"The name 'Lord's Supiier' is not elsewhere used in the NT, but in the Church the ' Lord's Supper ' was neither the earliest nor the commonest name for the Eucharist ; it primarily, though not exclas- ively, meant the annual re-enactment of the Last Supper, which survived after the Agape had first been separated from the Eucharist, and then li.ad gradually dropped out of use (see Smith's Diet. Christ. Antiq. s.v. 'Lord's Supper').

In any case, then, the ' Lord's Supper ' at Corinth would be already in progress when the bread and cup were blessed; St. Paul's censure and remedy (w.^-") * The name Agape is occasionally used for the Eucharist ItAelf, but more properly for the meal from which the Eucharist has been entirely separated (Z>tc(, Christ. Ant. «.u. ' Apat)e'). L GORINTHIAXS IL CORINTHIANS 491 plete lUtof works on the Kpp. to the Cor. will be found in tary (Kng. tr.)

, also in Plummer's articles on nith DB'i, see also Wald. Schmidt in PREi xL are entirely compatible with the closest adherence to the procedure of the Last Supper. Who presiiied, we do not know, but it may oe taken as certain that someone did. In v.** we see the first impulse toward the separation of the Eucharist proner from the common meal in whicli it was embedded (see Weizsacker, p. 601). St, Paul's account of the words of institution has probably crept into the text of St.

Luke's account of the Last Supper {see Hort's critical note). But it has recently been aryued by Percy Gardner ( The Origin of the Lord's Supper^ 1893) that a revelation to St. Paul at Corinth (so he very questionably understands 11^) may have been the sole source of the institution of tlie Eucharist ; and it is suggested furtlier, that this revelation was larj^ely coloured by the neigh- bouring mysteries of Eleusis.

The tradition of the institution in the first two Gospels is enough to refute this view. That they have derived it from Pauline influence is not to be believed for a moment ; nor, in view of its thoroughly Palestinian and Jewish antecedents, can great weight be assigned to the fact that they do not expressly record a command to repeat the ordinance (ci. Bickell, Messe und Pascha; Anrich, Antike Mys- terienwesen, p. 127). AVe note the stress laid by the apostle on previous preparation (11^).

The solemnity of the rit« in St. Paul's eyes can hardly be exaggerated. 12. LiTBftATi:RE.—<For complete commentaries on the XT see Kbw Tbstamk.vt; (or commentaries on the Epp. of St. Paul generally, and Introductions to them, see Paul, Romans; for grammuUcal works, see Lanouaok op tub NT.) A very com- Slete list of works c ' '", - leyer's Commentan Corinthians in Stni 8<Wflf., 378; Reuss, Gtsch. der U. SchH/ten NT, §88£f.

In a •elect bibliography we must be content with mentioning a few books of special importance without implying in any way that those omitted are without (often great) value, (a) On both Epistles : The historical Bittiation bos been specially discussed (amon;! others) by Bleek, UK 1830 ; Baur, Tub. Z. liWl (import- ant for the -r«>/«tT<x), Pa\dvjfiy pp. 2S7-3-13; Rabiger (see above, S 7); Scnenkel, De eccl. Cor. factionxbux turbata, ls;J8; Beyschlag, De eccl. Cor.

factione Christiana, 1861, and in SK, 1865, 1871; Hilgenfeld in his /AVTh. 1805, 18tJ0, 1871, 1872; Ht-inrici, da* ergte SS. des Ap. P. an die Kor. 1880, and in his edd. of Meyer (see below) ; Kldpper (see next article) ; Krenkel, B^traae z. An/hellujio d. Ges'-h. u. d. Brv^e det P. WM) ; Eviau, Zur Chron. d. P. Dritfe, 1873 ; Ilagge in J. prot. Th. 1870 ; Weizsacker (as cited above and) in J. Th. 1876; Pfleiderer, Urehnvtentum, pp. 8&-117, 1887; Ilauarath, Paulu^, 1805 (see also his llirt.

of N.T. Tiims, Eng. tr. 1S95); Lisco, Paulu* Antipaulinut {& very novel theory on 1 Co 1-4), 1894; Ektdal, Jjiter Paul, et Corr. quce intercengerint rationes utq. ad [1 Cor] (London), 1887 ; Godet, iMrod. (txiin.) 1894 ; Clemen (see above, I 6), and Schmiedel in Iland-Komtnentar^, 1891, 2 umji, the most •earching and accurate digest of the iminy complicated ques- tions involved ; 7jxhn,Einleit. ind.MT.'i. 195 fT. Of commentaries on both Epp.

the homilies of Cbrysostonj ' have ever been con Bidere«i by devout men as among the moat perfect specimens of his mind and teaching' (see Ni^ene and P. N. JAlrrary, series i. vol. xii.) ; they were delivered at Antioch, i.e. before 308 ; 44 are on 1 Co, SO on 2 Co. On the commentaries of Tlieodoret, John Damascene, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Euthymius, ' Ambrosi- aster,' Ietagius, Thomas Aquinas, the reader may be referred to the remarks in Sanday- Headlam, Romang, p. xcixff.

The 'Postils' of Nic. deLyra(flr8t in 1471-1472) mark a revival of exc- gctical insight upon some points in our Ep]>. Melanclithon wrote on both Epp., but 2 Co was not flnialied. Of more modem writers, Ix)cke*8 Paraphrase and Essay on St. Paul (170.'»-1707) dealt with 1 and 2 Co. For lists of 17th and I8th cent, com- mentators, see the references given above. The list of strictly modem commentaries opens with Pott, 1820; Billroth, 1853; Riickert^ 1830.

Olshausen, de Wette, Meyer dealt with the Epistles in their general works on the NT. Meyer remains the nearest approach to a standard commentary; his latest edd. have been revised by Heinrici, who had previously publislu-d a (y)mmentary of his own. Osiander, 1847-1858; Ncander, IH'.O ; Kling In I-ange's Hibelwrrk, isr.l ; Maior(Itom. Cath.) 1857-1806 ; Schne'lcnnann (in Stnu:k-Z<ickier). 1887 ; Si;hniieflel (see above).

On both Epistles, in EngliHh, the best mo<lem works are those of Hodje (New York), ls57-lS0J); K. W. Robertson i> (Ictures) ; eUnley, < 1976 J. A. Beet. 3iss5; Kay. 1887 (scholarly but ■light, posthumous) ; Lias (in Cainb. Greek Test.) 18.S0-18U2. We may add T. K.AblM»tt, Short Notes on St. Paul's Kpp. 1892. Several excellent coraiuentarics exist on 1 Co only. Dean Colct's (cd, by LupT^n). 1874; Hoydonreich. 1825-1823; IIoIsten(in Dag K vat* q. des PatUtut), 18S0 ; T. C. Kdwarrls. 1S85 (ven.'

valuable); ElU- oott, 1887 (possibly the most thorough Engh'sh commentary); Evans (In Speaker's Coinin.\ 1881 (unsurpassed insight in many passages); >odet, 1887 (•xccllent) ; Bois, Adwrsaria Critica, 1887; Milligan, The Resurrection of the Dead (on 1 Co 15), 1894 ; Lightfoot's Notes on Epistles of St. Paul, 1895, contain notes on 1 Co 1-7. References to Field's Otium Norvicense, to articles in the Expositor^ etc., a.re given by Plumraer in DIT',8.v.

1 and 2 Co ; the articles give interesting and valuable details as to style, coincidences with Acts, etc. The art. Paulus in PREi by W. Schmidt, contains some useful references ; that in Ersch and Qruber (1880) is by Schmiedel, and represents his earlier viewf on both Epistlee. A. ROBERTSON.