A commentary on St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians

Front matter

£S3Si&zrj'

CORNELL

UNIVERSITY

Preface

THE aim and method of the present volume are similar to those pursued in my Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. I have endeavoured, by careful grammatical study of St. Paul's words, to trace the line of thought they were designed to convey ; and to look, through his actual thoughts while writing, into his abiding conception of the Gospel and of Christ. The various elements of this conception, thus obtained, I have arranged in order along the course of my exposition ; and have compared them, in the concluding dissertations, with the results gained in my volume on Romans. This orderly arrangement and comparison of the practical results of exposition give to this commentary a claim to be, like its predecessor, a contribution to Systematic Theology. And I hold firmly that the method here adopted is the only safe pathway to a correct and comprehensive and connected view of the truths which, through the lips of Christ and through the intelligence and the pen of His Apostles, God has made known to men.

The peculiar subject-matter of the Epistles to the Corinthians makes them to be also a record of St. Paul's movements, a reflection of his surroundings, and a revelation of his inmost spiritual life. All these, St. Paul's movements, surroundings, and spiritual life, I have with the utmost care tried to reproduce and combine, in order thus to obtain a view, as full and correct as possible, of the great Apostle and of an apostolic church. Consequently, the present volume claims to be also a contribution to the Biography of St. Paul and to the Early History of the Christian Church.

vi PREFACE.

A conspicuous feature of this volume, as of the last, is its direct reference, unique I believe among commentaries, to the Evidences of Christianity. At great length I have developed the proof that the Epistles to the Romans and to the Corinthians came, practically as we have them now, from the pen of Paul. To those familiar with these epistles and with their literature, this proof may seem superfluous. For they know that no one calls it in question. But for my readers generally I thought it well thus to reveal the absolute strength of this first link in the historic chain which supports the Christian hope. And this example of absolute historic certainty, taking firm and visible hold of unquestionable matters of fact, is of great value as a standard with which to compare other historic evidence. The first great link of evidence here exposed to view receives its practical worth from the succeeding links unveiled in Dissertation i. of my volume on Romans^ links sustaining our most deeply cherished hopes. To the great arguments there expounded, the argument of this volume is altogether subordinate.

The method I have adopted is the best approach to the credentials of Christianity. Many popular writers on this subject set themselves to prove that the Bible is all true. But whoever attempts this undertakes a task involving immense scholarship and very much which the general reader must take on trust ; and exposes himself, and those who follow him, to attack along an extended line and from innumerable points. For every assault upon the historic correctness of a statement in the Bible, unless repelled, shakes his position. But against the line of argument pursued in these volumes such objections have no bearing whatever. For, without assuming or attempting to prove the Divine authority or historic truth of the Bible, and therefore without pledging ourselves to the correctness of all its statements, we have traced the Gospel, which we have stated in plain terms, by evidence tested according to the principles of ordinary historic credibility, to the lips of Christ • and have discovered reliable evidence that He claimed to b'e

PREFACE. vii

in a unique sense the Son of God, and that in proof of His claim God raised Him from the dead. In other words, the witnesses we have interrogated have led us into the presence of the Great Teacher, to the cross on which He died, and to His empty grave.

This line of investigation is also the best avenue to criticism of the date, authorship, and credibility of all other parts of the Old or New Testaments. For, from the point of view thus gained we can survey securely and calmly and clearly the entire domain of sacred scholarship. By reaching first, under guidance of numerous witnesses comparatively near to us, a firm ground for our faith, we are the better prepared to investigate matters farther from our day or not attested by so abundant evidence.

But in every case the investigation must accord with the universal laws of human credibility. To attempt to withdraw the matters of fact stated in the Bible from this supreme court of appeal is as absurd as for a man to claim that because he is a Christian his conduct must not be tried by the laws of human morality. And, just as these laws of morality reveal the grandeur and the divine origin of that Gospel which both reveals a still higher morality and gives us power to realise it in our own lives, so the laws of human credibility reveal the absolute certainty of the Great Facts of Christianity and thus reveal in the drama of human history an historical Person infinitely higher than man.

Amid the infinite variety of opinion, even among professed Christians, about the Bible and its contents, opinions shading imperceptibly one into another along the whole line, two extreme groups are easily distinguished, those who deviate furthest from, and those who cling most tenaciously to, the traditional teaching of the churches. About each of these groups I have something to say.

To many writers who have denied the Great Facts for which in these volumes I have strenuously contended, Biblical Scholarship and the Church of Christ owe, by the kind viii PREFACE.

Providence of God, an immense debt. Even the spiritual indifference with which some of them have handled sacred subjects has not been without advantage. For it has left them free from the prejudice which -has warped the judgment of so many earnest Christians. And their devotion to the philosophic study of the sacred languages and of the text and narratives and teaching of the Bible, looking at all these from a human point of view, has produced the best results. For, like the Personal Word, the Written Word is thoroughly human as well as divine. But, while cheerfully acknowledging this debt, I notice in many of their followers, of whom not a few are honest and earnest seekers after truth, a wonderful readiness to build up important theories on the scantiest foundation, and to accept with amazing confidence an hypothesis unheard of till yesterday. One is tempted to think that some of them make up for lack of faith by a large share of credulity.

On the other hand, very many who cling firmly to teaching which they and their fathers have proved to be a power of God to salvation betray an overweening satisfaction with even the details of their religious beliefs. All opinions new to them, they meet at once with hostility, and in proportion as these opinions differ from their own. And, to them, sacred scholarship seems to be of value chiefly as a weapon to defend their own views. But, surely, the most infatuated theologian cannot believe that, amid the infinite variety of religious opinions, his own system of doctrine is absolutely correct and all others in error in proportion as they deviate from it. And if, as we cannot deny, error and imperfection cling to all human conceptions of the divine, and all error conceals some truth and obscures the harmony of related truths and thus lessens the moral power of the Truth in our hearts, it should ever be our aim to correct our own mistakes and to obtain fuller and deeper knowledge. Only those who are willing and eager to be both taught and corrected can correct others. Again, I am compelled to say that many popular theological works on what may be called the conservative side betray, by ignoring important adverse

PREFACE. ix

evidence, a very imperfect acquaintance with the facts of the case, at which they seem unwilling or unable to look ; and, frequently, an utter absence of original investigation of the matter in hand. The chief aim of some writers seems to be, not to elucidate the subject, but merely to overthrow an opponent's argument. But it should never be forgotten that a reply which to persons unacquainted with the matter seems very clever may yet do nothing to prove the truth of the doctrine attacked ; or even to remove objections to it. For, to those familiar with the whole case, tnany objections, like all good arguments, suggest much more than lies on the surface. Moreover, unless a man has positive teaching to offer he had better not write at all. For mere negations never satisfy.

Our only safeguard amid the Babel of opinions around us is a fuller and more accurate knowledge of Holy Scripture. This alone will enable us to distinguish, in teaching new to us, the true from the false. And it is not too much to hope that such fuller knowledge will not only preserve us from disquietude, but will reveal to us a nearer and clearer view of the Son of God, and thus work in our hearts and lives a richer likeness to Him. And this is the true aim of all Biblical Scholarship.

Throughout this work I have endeavoured at every point and as far as possible to give proof of all I say, so as to make the fewest and least possible demands on the implicit confidence of my readers. Of this, my dissertation on the chronology of these epistles is a good example. And I think that this dissertation will prove that even for ordinary readers the details of the historic criticism of the New Testament, when clearly stated, have interest. For similar reasons I have on p. 17 discussed the date of the Epistles to the Thessalonians, on p. 493 the authorship of the Book of Acts, and on p. 516 that of the Epistle of Clement. Necessarily, the validity of my proofs depends on the correctness of my quotations. But almost all these the English reader may test for himself in Clark's Ante-Nicene Library. And by so doing he will gain x PREFACE,

an intelligent conviction such as can never be derived from mere quotations.

I have also endeavoured to distinguish the different degrees of confidence which different proofs warrant. Sometimes we have evidence which outweighs all that can be said on the other side but is not such as to remove doubt. And again, there may be evidence which justifies a confidence hardly to be distinguished from certainty and yet is inferior to other evidence open to no question whatever. Of this last, the proofs that St. Paul wrote these epistles is a specimen. Upon evidence of this kind rest all the Great Facts of the Gospel. A grade lower is the evidence that the Fourth Gospel is from the pen of the Apostle John. This various worth and importance of various evidence I have kept in view throughout the reasoning of these volumes.

All quotations have been carefully verified. Except two, where the source is mentioned, all have been taken from the original works. A few errors which unfortunately have crept into my pages are noted below.

Like most modern commentators, I have given a table of contents of each epistle. These are of great value as affording a connected view of the whole epistle and of the mutual relation of its parts. A special feature of this work is that the titles of my Sections, read consecutively, form an outline of the epistles : the titles of the Divisions form another and still shorter outline. These outlines, the student will do well to keep constantly before him.

In addition to the tables of contents, I have frequently and from various points taken a retrospect of the ground already passed over, and have summarised the results gained. This may expose me to the charge of repetition. But I have endeavoured to avoid mere repetition. And my deep conviction of the immense importance, for intelligent and thorough comprehension, of going again and again over the same ground, has made me the less reluctant to look back at the same objects from different points of view.

PREFACE. xi

The extracts from the Epistle of Clement afford a most instructive comparison and contrast with the Epistles of Paul. The references to (pp. 521, 527) the words of Christ, and the quotations from the Old Testament, are specially interesting, as revealing the form in which these were current in the first century. The influence of St. Paul's Epistles, and the inferiority of the work of Clement, are conspicuous throughout.

Appendix B supplements Introd. iii. It marks out almost the whole area still open to doubt and of practical importance in these epistles ; and will give the reader some idea of the frequent contradiction of the best documents and of the difficult task before the Textual Critic.

In addition to the commentaries mentioned in the preface to my volume on Romans, the work on these Epistles by the late lamented Dean Stanley has frequently and in various ways been useful to me. Of German writers, I have the able commentary of Osiander, and the very good and more recent one published by Kloepper. Of recent popular commentaries, the contribution of Dean Plumptre to Bishop Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers is, like everything from his pen, excellent. Canon Evans' work upon the First Epistle in the Speaker s Commentary is of great value, especially in its frequent renderings of St. Paul's words and in its first-rate Greek scholarship. Occasionally, even in matters of grammar, (e.g. p. 282,) I have ventured to dissent from the writer ; but never without respectful consideration. I am also under obligations to Canon Evans' papers in The Expositor, vol. iii. new series, on the Revised Version. Also very good is Mr. Wake's contribution on the Second Epistle.

Of biographies of St Paul, I have for many years owed much to the able and attractive work of Conybeare and Howson, which is by no means superseded now. Of equal value, especially for its abundant and well-chosen quotations from all sources and for its beautiful engravings, is the second edition of Lewin's St Paul, His Fasti Sacri has also been, as a collection of facts, of great use to me. But he frequently xii PREFACE.

builds up conclusions on very insufficient data (see p. 5°2 of this work) and bases arguments (e.g. on Acts xviii. 21 in A- S. p. lxiv.f; in p. lxxiii. on Acts xxviii. 16) on readings indisputably spurious. Consequently, while his laborious collection of facts lays us under heavy obligation, his deductions from these facts must be received, with great caution. These works, of which the value is chiefly in details, are supplemented by the living picture of the great Apostle, moving and speaking before us as a man among men, skilfully and beautifully painted in the great work of Canon Farrar. Of Neander's Planting of the Christian Church I have spoken in my former volume.

Quite different from the above, and written from an altogether different point of view, a point of view far removed from my own, the more valuable perhaps because of this difference, are F. C. Baur's scholarly and thoughtful work on Paul the Apostle and Rj^nan's attractive volumes. These and others of the same school I have had constantly in mind, especially while writing Dissertations 1. and n., and Dissertation 1. of my Romans ; and have endeavoured to disprove their chief conclusions. But it was needless to quote them.

A few words now about the remainder of this series. I purpose to publish next a small volume on the Epistle to the Galatians ; thus completing the epistles written during St. Paul's third missionary journey. Then, if life and strength and opportunity be granted me, will follow a volume on Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon ; and another volume on Thessalonians, Timothy, arid Titus. These I hope to supplement by a volume discussing St. Paul's teaching as a whole, and its relation to that of the other New Testament writers. These are my purposes. Their accomplishment is with God.

Warrington,

1st September, 18S2.

Contents

Introduction —

Sec. i. Retrospect and Prospect. „ ii. Are the Epistles Genuine? ,, iii. Are our Copies and Versions Correct? „ iv. Paul and the Church of Corinth.

Exposition of the First Epistle —

Section I. Retrospect And Prospect

i. In a former volume I attempted to show that we have abundant proof that the Epistle to the Romans came from the pen of Paul ; and that it is fairly reproduced in the Authorised English Version, and still more correctly in the Revised Version. We learnt, by study of the Epistle itself, that its entire argument rests upon five unproved but confident assertions or assumptions, viz. : that God in undeserved favour accepts as righteous all who believe the Gospel ; by means of the death of His Son ; that He designs believers to be, by union with Christ, sharers of the life of Christ, a life devoted to God ; that this design is accomplished in all who believe the gospel promises, so far as they believe ; by the agency of the Holy Spirit. It was evident to us that Paul accepted these doctrines because they were taught by Jesus, that he accepted the authority of Jesus as decisive because he believed Him to be in a unique sense the Son of God, and that he believed this because he had what he thought sufficient proof that Jesus rose from the dead. We found also that in each of these matters Paul's belief was shared by the many and various writers of the New Testament ; of which nearly the whole was before A.D. 200 accepted as authentic by the entire Christian Church. For this unanimous belief of the early disciples of Jesus, and for its effect upon them, and through them upon the world, we could conceive no explanation or sufficient cause except that Jesus actually rose from the dead,

CORINTHIA NS. [Sec .

ii.

actually claimed to be Son of God, and actually taught these great doctrines.

Throughout our inquiry we did not ascribe to any part of the Bible an infallible or special authority. We merely accepted the Epistle to the Romans as written by an honest and intelligent man. And, although we referred to other writings of the New Testament, we did not assume even their historical correctness; but simply accepted their unanimous testimony as proof that the above-mentioned belief of Paul was shared by other early Christian teachers. Owing to the number and variety of these witnesses, their testimony would remain unshaken even if it were proved that some of their statements contradict each other or contradict reliable contemporary history. For their unanimity can be explained only by the truth of that in which they agree.

2. In our study of the Epistles to the Corinthians we will adopt the same method. We shall find equally valid for them the documentary evidence already quoted for the genuineness of the Epistle to the Romans and for the correctness of our copies. And our study of the Epistles now before us and comparison of them with that to the Romans will afford internal evidence removing to an infinite distance from all possibility of doubt the genuineness of all three Epistles.

3. At the close of the former volume I pointed to a line of argument which if followed would lead, I confidently believe, to a full conviction that the extant writings of Paul are the authoritative voice of God. But this I do not wish to assume in the present volume. For the Epistles to the Corinthians contain in themselves so strong a confirmation of the reality and the truth of the facts and the teaching of the Gospel that I prefer, in order to feel the strength of this confirmation, to study them for the present without reference to their apostolic authority. We have no need to bring to Holy Scripture any opinion about its divine authority. This we shall learn best from the Scriptures themselves.

Section II. Are The Epistles Genuine ?

1. The facts and arguments adduced to prove the genuineness of the Epistle to the Romans are equally valid for those to the Corinthians.

Sec. ii.] INTRODUCTION. 3

2. Both Epistles are found in all Greek mss. of Paul's Epistles; and in the Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopia Versions.

3. Tertullian {Against Heretics ch. 33) says: "Paul in his 1st Epistle to the Corinthians speaks of those who deny or doubt the resurrection." So On Modesty ch. 13 : "For they suppose that the Apostle Paul in the 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians forgave the same fornicator whom in the 1st Epistle he commanded to be given to Satan for destruction of the flesh; " and then quotes in full 2 Cor. ii. 5 — 11. In chs. 13 — 16 he quotes expressly as Paul's 1 Cor. i. 14, 15 ; ii. 2 ; iii. 16, 17 ; iv. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 13, 18, 21 ; v. 1, 2, 5, 6; vi. 8, 9—11, 13, 14, 15—18, 19, 20; vii. 1—3, 7—9, 26—28, 29, 31, 32—34, 40; viii. 2 ; ix. 1, 4, 5, 15 ; x. 12 ; xi. 16 ; xvi. 22 : 2 Cor. ii. 6 ; iv. 1, 2 ; vi. 14— vii. 1, xii. 7, 9, 21. In his work Against Marcion, bk. v. 5 — 12, he quotes as admitted by Marcion, whose teaching was nevertheless utterly opposed to that of these Epistles, 1 Cor. i. 18 — 22, 25, 27—29, 31 ; ii. 6—8 ; iii. 10, 13, 16—22 ; iv. 5, 9 ; v. 1, 5, 7, 13 ; vi. 13—15, 20; vii. io, 11, 29, 39; viii. 4—6 ; ix. 9, 10; x. 4, 11 ; xi. 3, 7, 10; xii. 8— 10; xiv. 34; xv. 12, 21,22,25,29,35—57: 2 Cor. iii. 13—18; iv. 4, 7, 10, 16; v. 1—4, 8, 10, 17; vii. 1 ; xi. 4, 14 ; xii. 7 — 9. These quotations are complete proof, not merely that both by Tertullian and Marcion the Epistles were accepted as genuine, but that in the main they existed then in the form we now possess.

So Clement of Alexandria, Pcedagogue bk. i. 6: "Most clearly the blessed Paul has relieved us from the inquiry, writing in such away as this in the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 'Brothers, be not children in understanding, etc.'" So elsewhere abundantly.

So IREN^EUS, in bk. iv. 27. 3: "That the Apostle showed this very clearly, saying in the Epistle to the Corinthians, ' I do not wish you to be ignorant, brothers, etc/ " quoting 1 Cor. x. 1 — 11. This seems to be a quotation from the teacher referred to on p. 6 of my Romans. In ch. 2j he also quotes, as written by the Apostle, 1 Cor. v. 6, 11 ; vi. 9, 10; and, in ch. 26, 1 Cor. xii. 28, 2 Cor. ii. 17, vii. 2.

Innumerable quotations make us quite certain that the above writers were unconscious of any doubt about the genuineness of these Epistles.

The Fragment of Muratori says: "The Epistles of Paul, from whatever place and for whatever cause they were drawn up,

4 CORINTHIANS. [Sec. ii.

themselves declare to those who wish to understand. First of all to the Corinthians forbidding the division of sect, etc."

In the Latin version which is all that remains of the latter part of Polycarp's letter to the Philippians (referred to in Irenaeus bk. iii. 3. 4) we read, "Do you not know that the saints will judge the world, as Paul teaches ? " Ignatius refers evidently, in ch. 2 of his Epistle to the Ephesians, to 1 Cor. i. 10 ; and, less clearly, in ch. 18 to 1 Cor. i. 20.

Still more valuable proof of the genuineness of Paul's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians is found in the letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthian church, of which I have given extracts in Appendix A. The express mention, in ch. 47, of the Epistle as Paul's, and the clear reference to its subject matter, prove conclusively that about A.D. 100 it was accepted by the churches of Rome and Corinth as written by Paul.

We find, therefore, that the Epistles to the Corinthians, like that to the Romans, were well known and were accepted without a shadow of doubt both by friends and foes before A.D. 200 in places so far apart as Carthage, Egypt, and Gaul; and that the First Epistle was referred to by three writers born before A.D. 100, and was appealed to within the lifetime probably of some who had seen the Apostle in a public letter from the church at Rome to that at Corinth as having been written to the latter church by Paul. We have thus external evidence for the Second Epistle equal to, for the First Epistle much stronger than, that adduced for the Epistle to the Romans.

4. For the genuineness of the Epistles to the Corinthians, we have moreover other evidence peculiar and irresistible. Their contents are such as no forger would dare to write ; and such as would certainly prevent their acceptance by the church at Corinth except on evidence which forbad all doubt. Each letter abounds in severest condemnation. Self-conceited men (1 Cor. iv. 18) evidently resisted the Apostle : and (v. 2) the whole church, inflated with pride, tolerated a crime not found even among the heathen. Church-members insulted the church (vi. 1) by going to law against each other. Intercourse with harlots (vi. 18) needed to be seriously warned against; and connivance (x. i4ff) at idolatry. The Lord's Supper (xi. 21) was shamefully desecrated. And some church-members maintained a denial logically subversive of the whole Gospel. Bad men doing Satan's work (2 Cor. xi. 13ft) and bitterly hostile to the Apostle were tolerated [v. 20) by the church. In spite of reproof (xii.

Sec. hi.] INTRODUCTION. 5

21 — xiii. 2) some church-members persisted in gross sensuality. And the Apostle was accused (i. 17) of vacillation and weakness. Even if we suppose these descriptions of the church to have been true, no contemporary forger would dare to record them in a letter for which he sought acceptance as written by Paul : nor would any church accept, without careful scrutiny, so public a monument of its degradation. If at a later date the forgery were made, reverence for the earliest Christians at Corinth and for the Apostle would at once suggest a scrutiny which could not fail to detect the imposture.

That we have two condemnatory letters, increases the unlikeliness of forgery. For two letters would attract more attention than one. And two forgeries must necessarily be more difficult than one.

5. The above evidence, conclusive as it is, is yet by no means the whole. Our study of these Epistles, as embodied in Dissertations 1. and II., will assure us that the Epistles to the Corinthians and the Romans came from the same author, from a man of vast mental power, of intense earnestness, and of the highest moral grandeur. Now the contents of the Epistles to the Corinthians are such as must be either genuine or written with an intent to deceive. Can we conceive a man able to write such letters as these three perpetrating a forgery in order to hide his own name in oblivion ? Nay more : no man could do it. For the tone of reality throughout these Epistles is too clear to be simulated. The living picture here presented can be no other than a genuine reflection of actual life. And, that it is such, will be strongly confirmed by our comparison of the Book of Acts. So abundant and unquestionable is this various evidence that in all ages these three Epistles and that to the Galatians have been accepted as genuine both by those who share, and those who trample under foot, the earnest faith of the great Apostle. As Renan says, {Saint Paul, Introd. p. v.,) they are " incontestable and uncontested."

Section III. Are Our Copies And Versions Correct?

1. The proofs given in my Romans, Introd. § 3, that our Authorised Version is, within narrow and specified limits, a correct reproduction of the words actually written by Paul are

6 CORINTHIANS. CSec- m-

equally valid for the Epistles to the Corinthians. And they are strengthened immensely by the Revised Version. For, after a searching scrutiny during many years, by men of different theological opinions, the New Testament is presented to us in a form practically the same as the Old Version. It now remains to us only to note the principal changes in the Greek Text which the Critical Editors agree to propose, the principal variations of Text still open to doubt, and the extent to which the assured results of Textual Criticism in the Greek Text of these Epistles are adopted by the Revisers ; and the Revisers' rendering of this Text.

2. Out of 233 variations from the text underlying the Authorised Version of 1 Corinthians which Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles agree to propose, Westcott and Hort (see my Romans, Appendix A) accept without note 226 : they place 4 more in their text with an alternative in the margin, and 3 more in their margin ; and overlook none. In 2 Corinthians, out of 120 variations which the earlier editors agree to propose, Westcott and Hort accept 119, placing only one (2 Cor. i. 8) in their margin. The only changes worthy of note proposed by them and not mentioned by the other editors are ;—