1 Corinthians 4

CHAPTER 4

1 Corinthians 4:2. ὃδέ] Lachm. Rück. Tisch. read ὧδε, with A B C D* F G à, min[585] Syr[586] Erp. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. It. Jerome, Aug. Ambr. Pelag. Sedul. Bede. This vastly preponderating testimony in favour of ὧδε, and its infrequency with Paul (only again in Colossians 4:9), make the Recept[587] seem the result of change or error on the part of transcribers.

ζητεῖται] A C D E F G à, min[588] have ζητεῖτε. Recommended by Griesb. But B L and all the vss[589] and Fathers are against it. A copyist’s error.—1 Corinthians 4:6. Instead of ὅ, A B C à, 31, Syr. p[590] Copt. Athan. Cyril have ἅ; which is recommended by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and Rückert. The Latin authorities have supra quam, which leaves their reading doubtful. The preceding ταῦτα naturally suggested ἅ.

φρονεῖν] is wanting in A B D* E* F G à, 46, Vulg. It. and Latin Fathers. Rightly deleted by Lachm. Tisch. and Rckert.[591] A supplementary addition, in place of which Athanasius has φυσιοῦσθαι.—1 Corinthians 4:9. ὅτι after γάρ has preponderant evidence against it, and should be deleted, as is done by Lachm. Rück. and Tisch. Superfluous addition.—1 Corinthians 4:13. βλασφ.] A C à*, 17 46, Clem. Origen (twice), Euseb. Cyril, Damasc. have δυσφ. Approved by Griesb., accepted by Rück. and Tisch. Rightly; the more familiar (for the verb δυσφ. occurs nowhere else in the N. T., comp 2 Corinthians 6:8), and at the same time stronger word was inserted.—1 Corinthians 4:14. νουθετῶ] A C à, min[593] Theophylact have νουθετῶν. An assimilation to the foregoing participle.

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

[586] yr. Peschito Syriac

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

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

[589] ss. vss. = versions.

[590] yr. p. Philoxenian Syriac.

[591] Φρονεῖν has been defended again by Reiche in his Commentar. crit. I. p. 146 ff. He urges that the omission is not attested by the Greek Fathers, and, out of all the versions, only by the Latin ones, and that the word is indispensable. But the latter is not the case; and the former consideration cannot turn the scale against the decisive weight of the chief codices, among which only C—and even that not certainly—has Φρονεῖν.

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

1 Corinthians 4:1-5

1 Corinthians 4:1-5. The right point of view from which to regard Christian teachers (1 Corinthians 4:1-2); Paul, nevertheless, for his own part, does not give heed to human judgment, nay, he does not even judge himself, but his judge is Christ (1 Corinthians 4:3-4). Therefore his readers should give up their passing of judgments till the decision of the Parousia (1 Corinthians 4:5).

1 Corinthians 4:2

1 Corinthians 4:2. If we read ὧδε (see the critical remarks), we must understand the verse thus: Such being the state of the case, it is, for the rest, required of the stewards, etc., so that λοιπόν (1 Corinthians 1:16) would express something which, in connection with the relationship designed in 1 Corinthians 4:1, remained now alone to be mentioned as pertaining thereto, while ὧδε[600] again, quite in accordance with the old classical usage (see Lehrs, Arist. p. 84 ff.), would convey the notion of sic, i.e. “cum eo statu res nostrae sint” (Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 991). We might paraphrase, therefore, as follows: “Such being the nature of our position as servants, the demand to be made upon the stewards of households[601] of course takes effect.” If we abide by the Recept[602], ὃδὲλοιπόν must be rendered: But as to what remains, i.e. but as respects what else there is which has its place in connection with the relationship of service spoken of in 1 Corinthians 4:1, this is the demand, etc.; comp on Romans 6:10. It is a perversion of the passage to make it refer, as Billroth does, to the preceding depreciation of the supposed merits of the teachers: “but what still remains for them is, that they can at least strive for the praise of faithfulness.” The rest of the verse says nothing at all about a being able to strive; for ζητεῖταιἐν means nothing else but: it is sought at their hand (requiritur), i.e. demanded of them.

See Wetstein. Hofmann’s interpretation, too, is an impossible one. He makes ὁδὲλοιπόν down to εὑρεθῇ to be the protasis; ἐμοὶδὲκ.τ.λ[604], and that running on as far as ΚΎΡΙΌςἘΣΤΙΝ in 1 Corinthians 4:4, to be the apodosis: As respects that, however, which … is further required, namely, that one be found faithful, it is to me, etc. This interpretation gives us, instead of the simple, clearly progressive sentences of the apostle, a long, obscurely and clumsily involved period, against which on linguistic grounds there are the two considerations—(1) that ὋΔῈΛΟΙΠῸΝΖΗΤΕῖΤΑΙ would presuppose some demand already conveyed in ver 1, to which a new one was now added; and (2) that the ΔΈ of the apodosis in 1 Corinthians 4:3 would require to find its antithetic reference in the alleged protasis in 1 Corinthians 4:2 (comp Acts 11:17; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 92 f.), namely, to this effect: to me, on the contrary, not concerned about this required faithfulness, it is, etc. Now the first is not the case, and the second would be absurd. Neither the one difficulty nor the other is removed by the arbitrarily inserted thoughts, which Hofmann seeks to read between the lines.[606]

ἵνα] is sought with the design, that there be found. Hence the object of the seeking is conveyed in the form expressive of design. That εὑρίσκεσθαι is not equivalent to ΕἾΝΑΙ (Wolff, Flatt, Pott, and others) is plain here, especially from the correlation in which it stands to ΖΗΤΕῖΤΑΙ.

ΤΙς] i.e. any one of them. See Matthiae, p. 1079; Nägelsbach on the Iliad, p. 299, ed. 3.

πιστός] Luke 12:42; Luke 16:10 ff.; Matthew 25:21 ff.; Ephesians 6:21, al[607] The summing up of the duties of spiritual service.

[600] The word would be singularly superfluous, and would drag behind in the most awkward way, were we, with Lachmann, to treat it as belonging to ver. 1, and to separate it by a point from λοιπόν.

[601] This ἐντοῖςοἰκονόμ. is not “uncalled for and superfluous” after ὧδε (as Hofmann objects); for Paul had, in ver. 1, described the official service of the teachers by two designations, but now desires to attach what more he has to say in ver. 2 specially of the second of these designations, and hence he has again to bring in the οἰκονόμοι.

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

[604] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

[606] In λοιπόν he finds: “Besides this, that the stewards act in accordance with their name.” By the antithetic ἐμοὶδέ, again, Paul means: “in contrast to those who conduct themselves as though he must consider it of importance to him.” By interpolations of this sort, everything may be moulded into what shape one will.

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

1 Corinthians 4:3

1 Corinthians 4:3. I, for my part, however, feel myself in no way made dependent on your judgment by this ζητεῖταικ.τ.λ[608]

εἰςἐλάχιστόνἐστιν] εἰς, in the sense of giving the result: it comes to something utterly insignificant, evinces itself as in the highest degree unimportant. Comp Pindar, Ol. i. 122: ἐςχάριντέλλεται, Plato, Alc. I. p. 126 A; Buttmann, neutest. Gramm. p. 131 [E. T. 150].

ἵνα] does not stand for ὅταν (Pott), nor does it take the place of the construction with the infinitive (so most interpreters); but the conception of design, which is essential to ἵνα, is in the mind of the writer, and has given birth to the expression. The thought is: I have an exceedingly slight interest in the design of receiving your judgment.

ἀνακριθῶ] “fidelisne sim nec ne,” Bengel.

ἢὑπὸἀνθρ. ἡμ.] or by a human day at all. The day, i.e. the day of judgment, on which a human sentence is to go forth upon me, is personified. It forms a contrast with the ἡμέραΚυρίου, which Paul proceeds hereafter, not indeed to name, but to describe, see 1 Corinthians 4:5.

ἀλλʼ οὐδέ] yea, not even, as in 1 Corinthians 3:2.

ἐμαυτόν] Billroth and Rückert think that the contrast between the persons properly demanded αὐτὸςἐμαυτ. here, which, however, has been overlooked by Paul. But the active expression ἐμαυτὸνἀνακρίνω is surely the complete contrast to the passive ὑφʼ ὑμ. ἀνακρ.; hence αὐτός might, indeed, have been added to strengthen the statement, but there was no necessity for its being so.

The ἀνακρίνειν in the whole verse is neither to be understood solely of unfavourable, nor solely of favourable judging, but of any sort of judgment regarding one’s worth in general. See 1 Corinthians 4:4-5.

[608] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

1 Corinthians 4:4

1 Corinthians 4:4. Parenthetical statement of the ground of Paul’s not even judging himself (οὐδὲν … δεδικ.), and then the antithesis (δέ: but indeed) to the above οὐδὲἐμαυτ. ἀνακρίνω.

γάρ] The element of proof lies neither in the first clause alone (Hofmann), nor in the second clause alone, so that the first would be merely concessive (Baumgarten, Winer, Billroth, Rückert, who supplies μέν here again, de Wette, Osiander), but in the antithetic relation of both clauses, wherein ἀλλά has the force of at, not of “sondern:” judge not my own self, because I am conscious to myself of nothing, but am not thereby justified, i.e. because my pure (official, be 1 Corinthians 4:2) self-consciousness (comp Acts 23:1; Acts 24:16; 2 Corinthians 1:12) is still not the ground on which my justification rests. As regards the expression, comp Plato, Apol. p. 21 B: οὔτεμέγαοὔτεσμικρὸνξύνοιδαἐμαυτῷσοφὸςἔν, Rep. p. 331 A; and Horace, Ep. i. 1. 61: “nil conscire sibi, nulla pallescere culpa;” Job 27:6.

οὐκἐντούτῳδεδικ.] is ordinarily understood wrongly: “I do not is that account look upon myself as guiltless.” For the words οὐκἐντούτῳ, negativing justification by a good conscience, make it clear that δεδικ. expresses the customary conception of being justified by faith (see on Romans 1:17; so rightly, Calovius, Billroth Rückert), since, on the view just referred to, we must have had ἐντούτῳοὐ.[612] The οὐ is as little in its wrong place here as in 1 Corinthians 15:51. Note that the ΔΕΔΙΚΑΊΩΜΑΙ is to the apostle an undoubted certain fact;[613] hence we may not explain it, with Hofmann: Not thereby am I pronounced righteous as respects faithfulness in the fulfilment of my office, but only if (?) the Lord shall charge me with no neglect of duty. That would plainly make the δεδικαίωμαι problematic.

Κύριος] Christ, 1 Corinthians 4:5.

[612] Paul’s thought has run thus:—“Were I justified by my conscience free of reproach, then I should be entitled to pass judgment on myself, namely, just in accordance with the standard of the said conscience. But seeing that I am not justified by this conscience (but by Christ), it cannot even serve me as a standard for self-judgment, and I must refrain therefrom, and leave the judgment regarding me to Christ.” This applies also against de Wette, who holds our exposition to be contrary to context, because what follows is not ὁδὲδικαιῶν, but ὁδὲἀνακρίνων. Moreover, the further imputation of moral desert is certainly not done away with by justification, but it remains in force until the judgment. Δεδικαίωμαι, however, does not refer to the being found righteous at the day of judgment (against Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 48), but, as the perfect shows, to the righteousness obtained by faith, which to the consciousness of the apostle was at all times a present blessing.—Observe further, how alien to Paul was the conception that the conscience is the expression of real divine life in the man. Comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 141.

[613] So precisely Ignatius, ad Romans 5 : ἀλλʼ οὐπαρὰτοῦτοδεδικαίωμαι. The certitudo gratiae is expressed but as not based upon the conscience void of reproach.

1 Corinthians 4:5

1 Corinthians 4:5. Therefore judge nothing before the time, namely, with respect to me; not as Billroth thinks: one sect regarding another, which is inadmissible in view of the preceding ἀνακρ. με and of the whole passage, 1 Corinthians 4:3-4, which all applies to Paul. The process of thought from 1 Corinthians 4:3 onwards is, namely, this: “For my part, you may judge me if you will, I make very little of that; but (1 Corinthians 4:4) seeing that I do not even judge myself, but that he that judgeth me is Christ, I therefore counsel you (1 Corinthians 4:5) not to pass a judgment upon me prematurely.”

πρὸκαιροῦ] i.e. before it is the right time, Matthew 8:29; Sir 30:24; Sir 51:30; Lucian, Jov. Trag. 47. How long such judging would continue to be πρὸκαιροῦ, we learn only from what comes after; hence we must not by anticipation assign to καιρός the specific sense of tempus reditus Christi.

τι] i.e. κρίσιντινά, John 7:24.

κρίνετε] describes the passing of the judgment, the consequence of the ἀνακρ., a manner accordant with the looking forward to the Messianic judgment. Luther, Raphel, and Wolf render: alium alii praeferte; but this runs counter to the context, for it must be analogous to the general ἀνακρ.

ἕωςἂνἔλθῃὁκ.] Epexegesis of πρὸκαιροῦ: judge not before the time (judge not, I say), until the Lord shall have come. Then only is it a καίριονκρίνειν, because then only can the judgment be pronounced rightly according to the Lord’s decision. The ἄν marks out the coming as in so far problematical (depending upon circumstances; see Hartung, Partikell. p. 291), inasmuch as it was not, indeed, doubted, and yet at the same time not dependent upon subjective determination, but an object of expectant faith in the unknown future. Comp Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27; Luke 13:35; Revelation 2:25.

ὃςκαί] καί is the also customary with the relative, the effect of which is to bring into prominence some element in keeping with what has gone before (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 152; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 243 [E. T. 283]). In His function as Judge, in which He is to come, He will do this also, He will light up, i.e. make manifest, what is hidden in the darkness. Respecting φωτίσει, comp Sir 24:32; 2 Timothy 1:10; Plut. Mor. p. 931 C, and the passages in Wetstein. What withdraws itself from the light as its opposite (Hofmann, who takes καὶ … καί as meaning as well, as also) is included here, but not that alone. Compare rather the general statement in Luke 8:17.

καὶφανερ. τ. βουλ. τῶνκαρδ.] a special element selected from the foregoing general affirmation. The significant bearing of what Paul here affirms of Christ at His coming is the application which the readers were to make of it to himself and the other teachers; it was to be understood, namely, that their true character also would only then become manifest, i.e. be laid open as an object of knowledge, but now was not yet submitted to judgment.

καὶτότε … Θεοῦ] so that ye can only then pass judgment on your teachers with sure (divine) warrant for what ye do. The chief emphasis is upon the ἀπὸτ. Θεοῦ, which is for that reason put at the end (Kühner, II. p. 625), and next to it upon what is placed first, ὁἔπαινος. This does not mean praemium (so Flatt, with older expositors, citing wrongly in support of it such passages as Romans 2:29; Romans 13:3; 1 Peter 1:7; 1 Peter 2:14; Wis 15:19; Polybius, 2. 58. 11), nor is it a vox media (as, following Casaubon, a[616] Epict. 67, Wolf, Rosenmüller, Pott, and others assume wholly without proof); but it denotes simply the praise, the commendation. The apparent incongruity with ἑκάστῳ is obviated by the article: the praise that appertains to him (Bernhardy, p. 315) shall be given to each,—so that Paul here puts entirely out of sight those who deserve no praise at all. And rightly so. For his readers were to apply this to him and Apollos; hence, as Calvin justly remarks: “haec vox ex bonae conscientiae fiducia nascitur.” See 1 Corinthians 4:4. Theophylact’s view, although adopted by many, is an arbitrary one: “unde et contrarium datur intelligi, sed mavult εὐφημεῖν,” Grotius (so also Bengel, Billroth, Rückert, Olshausen).

ἀπὸτ. Θεοῦ] not from men, as ye now place and praise the one above the other, but on the part of God; for Christ the Judge is God’s vicegerent and representative, John 5:27 ff.; Acts 10:42; Acts 17:31; Romans 2:16, al[617]

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

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

1 Corinthians 4:6-13

1 Corinthians 4:6-13. Now, what I have hitherto given utterance to in a manner applicable to myself and Apollos, has for its object to wean you from party-pride (1 Corinthians 4:6). Rebuke of this pride (1 Corinthians 4:7-13).

1 Corinthians 4:7

1 Corinthians 4:7. The words ἵναμὴ … ἑτέρου are now justified by two considerations—(1) No one maketh thee to differ; it is a difference of thine own making, which thou settest between thee and others. (2) What thou possessest thou hast not from thyself, and it is absurd to boast thyself of it as though it were thine own work. Hofmann holds that Paul in his first proposition glances at his own difference from others, and in his second at the gifts of Apollos; but this is neither indicated in the text, nor would it accord with the fact that he and Apollos are to be examples of humility to the readers, but not examples to humble them—namely, by high position and gifts.

σέ] applies to each individual of the preceding ὑμεῖς, not therefore simply to the sectarian teachers (Pott, following Chrysostom and several of the old expositors).

The literal sense of διακρίνει is to be retained. The Vulgate rightly renders: “Quis enim te discernit?” Comp Acts 15:9; Homer, Od. iv. 179; Plato, Soph. p. 253 E, Charm. p. 171 C. This of course refers, in point of fact, to supposed pre-eminence; but Paul will not describe it as pre-eminence (contrary to the common rendering: Who maketh thee to differ for the better?).

τὶδὲἔχειςκ.τ.λ[644]] ΔΈ, like that which follows, heaps question on question. See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 169. To what Paul is pointing in the general: “But what possessest thou,” etc., their own conscience told his readers, and it is clear also from the next question, that, namely, of which they boasted, their Christian insight, wisdom, eloquence, and the like. He certainly did not think of himself and the other teachers as the source (ἔλαβες) of the gifts (Semler, Heydenreich, Pott), which would be quite contrary to his humble piety, but: οὐδὲνοἴκοθενἔχεις, ἀλλὰπαρὰτοῦθεοῦλαβών, Chrysostom. Comp 1 Corinthians 3:5, 1 Corinthians 12:6, 1 Corinthians 15:10.

ΕἸΔῈΚΑῚἜΛ.] again, even if thou hast received, even if thou hast been endowed with gifts, which I will by no means deny. Εἰκαί is not meant to represent the possession of them as problematical (Rückert), but is concessive. Comp 2 Corinthians 4:3. See Hermann, a[647] Viger. p. 832; comp Hartung, I. p. 140 f.; Klotz, a[649] Devar. p. 519 f.

ΤΊΚΑΥΧᾶΣΑΙΚ.Τ.Λ[650]] οὐδεὶςἐπʼ ἀλλοτρίαιςπαρακαταθήκαιςμεγαφρονεῖ, ἐπαγρυπνεῖδὲταύταις, ἵναφυλάξῃτῷδεδωκότι, Theodoret.

[644] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

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

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

[650] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

1 Corinthians 4:8

1 Corinthians 4:8. The discourse, already in 1 Corinthians 4:7 roused to a lively pitch, becomes now bitterly ironical, heaping stroke on stroke, even as the proud Corinthians, with their partisan conduct, needed a νουθεσία (1 Corinthians 4:14) to teach them humility. The transition, too, from the individualizing singular to the plural corresponds to the rising emotion. The interrogative way of taking the passage (Baumgarten) weakens it without reason; for the disapproval of such bitter derision (Stolz, Rückert) is, in the first place, over-hasty, since Paul could not but know best how he had to chastise the Corinthians; and, in the second, it fails to recognise the fact, that he, just in consequence of the purity of his conscience, could give rein to the indignant temper amply warranted in him by the actual position of things, without justifying the suspicion of self-seeking and thirst for power (this in opposition to Rückert).

In κεκορ. ἐστέ, ἐπλουτ., and ἐβασιλ., we have a vehement climax: Already sated are ye, already become rich are ye; without our help ye have attained to dominion! The sarcastic force of this address, which shows the repulsive shape in which the inflated character and demeanour of the Corinthians presented itself, is intensified by the emphatically prefixed ἤδη … ἤδη and χωρὶςἡμῶν: “already ye have, what was only expected in the coming αἰών, fulness of satisfaction and of enrichment in Messianic blessings; without our help (mine and that of Apollos, 1 Corinthians 4:6) are ye arrived at the highest stage of Messianic power and glory, at the βασιλεία!” You have already reached such a pitch of Christian perfection, are become without us such mightily exalted and dominant personages, that there is presented in you an anticipation of the future Messianic satisfaction, of the Messianic fulness of possession and dominion. Ordinarily, κεκορ. and ἐπλουτ. (comp Revelation 3:17) have been taken as referring specially to Christian knowledge and other endowments (comp 1 Corinthians 1:5), and ἐβασιλ. either as referring likewise to knowledge, the highest degree of it being meant (Vater, Heydenreich), or to high prosperity and repute in general (Calvin, Justiniani, Lightfoot, Wetstein, Flatt, Pott), or to the quiet security in which kings live (Grotius), or to the “dominium et jus statuendi de rebus Christianis” (Semler), or to the domination of the one sect over the other (Estius), or of the teacher over his party (Billroth is undecided between these two views). But all these interpretations fail to do justice to the sarcastic method of expression, although they in part correctly enough describe the state of the case, which is here ironically presented. The right view may be seen in Hofmann also. In connection with the ἐβασιλ. left without being more precisely defined, nothing came so naturally and at once to the Christian consciousness as the thought of the Messianic βασιλεία.[653] And how well this idea corresponds to the wish which follows!

If, however, ἐβασ. applies to the Messianic ruling (see on 1 Corinthians 3:22; Usteri, Lehrbegriff, p. 370), and consequently to the συμβασιλεύειν of 2 Timothy 2:12, comp Romans 8:17, then in that case κεκορ. and ἐπλουτ. also, to preserve the symmetry of this ironical picture, must be understood in the sense of the Messianic consummation of all things, and must denote the being full and rich κατʼ ἐξοχήν (namely, in the blessings of the Messianic salvation), which for the Christian consciousness did not need to be particularly specified. Comp Matthew 5:6; 2 Corinthians 8:9. The perfect brings before us the state, the aorists the fact of having entered upon the possession. See Kühner, a[656] Xen. Mem. i. 1. 18. As to ἤδη, i.e. now already, see on John 4:35.

χωρὶςἡμῶν] without whose work, in fact, you would not be Christians at all!

καὶὄφελόνγεκ.τ.λ[657]] and (the thought suddenly striking his mind) would that ye had indeed attained to dominion! In the later Greek writers ὄφελον is used as a particle, and joined with the indicative, 2 Corinthians 11:1; Galatians 5:12. See Matthiae, p. 1162. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 185 [E. T. 214 f.]. Γέ strengthens the force of ὌΦΕΛΟΝ; see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 372 f.; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 55 f. The thought is: “Apart from this, that ye have without us become rulers, would that ye had at least (γέ) become such!” Comp Klotz, a[659] Devar. p. 281 f.

ἽΝΑΚ. ἩΜΕῖςὙΜῖΝΣΥΜΒΑΣ.] Ye would doubtless in that case, Paul deems, suffer us also to have some share (beside you) in your government! The subjunctive is quite according to rule (in opposition to Rückert), seeing that ἐβασιλ. denotes something completed from the speaker’s present point of view (have become rulers), and seeing that the design appears as one still subsisting in the present. See Klotz, a[660] Devar. p. 617 f.; Stallbaum, a[661] Plat. Crit. p. 43 B.

Observe, we may add, how the sarcastic climax ends at last with ΚΑῚὌΦΕΛΌΝΓΕΚ.Τ.Λ[662] in a way fitted to put the readers deeply to shame. Comp Chrysostom.

[653] So rightly also Schrader, Rückert, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Neander, Hofmann. Comp. Olshausen (who, however, gives a rationalizing view of the ruling).

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

[657] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

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

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

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

[662] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

1 Corinthians 4:9

1 Corinthians 4:9. Γάρ] giving the ground of the foregoing wish: For the position of us apostles is to my mind such, that to us the συμβασ. would even be a thing very desirable! It is precisely the reverse of that!

In δοκῶ we have a palpable point in the statement. Comp on 1 Corinthians 7:40. Without ὅτι following, see in Kühner, a[665] Xen. Anab. v. 7. 13.

ἡμᾶςτοὺςἀπ.] does not refer simply to Paul (Calvin and others, including Schrader and Olshausen), which is forbidden by τοὺςἀπ., but to the apostles generally. The designation τοὺςἀποστ. is added by way of contrast to their position, in which they, instead of being at all privileged as apostles, were ἔσχατοι. Observe further, how in this passage, on to 1 Corinthians 4:13, Paul paints his picture of the apostles in colours drawn from his own personal experience.

ἐσχάτους] Predicate: as homines infimae sortis. Comp Mark 9:35; Alciphr. iii. 43; Dio Cassius, xlii. 5; Dem. 346, pen. It is joined with ἀποστ. by Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, and others, including Semler and Pott: “Deus nos, qui postremi apostoli facti fuimus, tamquam ἐπιθαν. oculis alior. sistit” (Pott). But in that case we should require to have τοὺςἀπ. τοὺςἐσχ., or at least τοὺςἐσχ. ἀπ., because ἐσχ. would necessarily be the emphatic word; and at any rate, looked at generally, this would give us an inappropriate and unhistorical contrast between the experiences of the later apostles and those of the first.

ἀπέδειξεν] not: fecit, reddidit, but: He has set us forth, presented us as last, caused us to appear as such before the eyes of the world (see the following θέατρονκ.τ.λ[667]). Comp 2 Thessalonians 2:4; Plat. Conv. p. 179 C; Dem. 687. 11; Xen. Oec. v. 10; Wyttenbach, a[669] Plat. Phaed. p. 72 C.

ὩςἘΠΙΘΑΝΑΤ.] as men condemned to death, so that we appear as such. How true in view of their constant exposure to deadly perils! Comp 1 Corinthians 15:30 f.; 2 Corinthians 11:23 ff. Tertullian’s rendering (de pudie. 14): “veluti bestiarios,” although adopted by Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Michaelis, Schrader, and others, is an arbitrary limitation of the meaning. The correct explanation is given by Chrysostom and Theophylact. Comp Dion. Hal. vii. 35.

ὍΤΙΘΈΑΤΡΟΝἘΓΕΝ. Κ.Τ.Λ[672]] serves to make good the statement from δοκῶ to ἐπιθαν.; hence it is a mistake to write ὅ, τι and connect it with θέατρ., as Hofmann conjectures should be done (“which spectacle we have in truth become to the world”). The meaning is: seeing that we have become a spectacle, etc. Θέατρον is here like θέα or θέαμα, as Aesch. Dial. Socr. iii. 20; Ach. Tat. I. p. 55. Comp θεατρίζεσθαι, Hebrews 10:33; ἐκθεατρίζεσθαι, Polyb. iii. 91. 10, v. 15. 2.

καὶἀγγ. κ. ἀνθρ.] specializes the τῷκόσμῳ: to the whole world, both angels and men. The inhabitants of heaven and of earth gaze upon our hardships and persecutions as on a spectacle.

The word ἄγγελοι in the N. T., standing absolutely, is never used of the good and bad angels taken together (this against Zeger, Bengel, Olshausen, al[674]), nor of the bad alone (this against Vatablus, Estius, Calovius, Wolf, and others, including Flatt and Neander), but always only of the angels κατʼ ἐξοχήν, i.e. of the good angels (comp on Romans 8:38). Where it refers to the bad angels, it always has some addition defining it so (Matthew 25:41; 2 Corinthians 12:7; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6). Hahn’s objection is a trifling one (Theol. d. N. T.

I. p. 261): that the angelic world generally is meant; comp also Hofmann. Yes, but the evil angels are no longer therein; see on Ephesians 2:2. Some have thought that we must bring in the bad angels, because θέατρον involves the idea: a subject of mirth and mockery. But this is purely arbitrary. The particular interest felt by the spectators in the drama of the apostolic fortunes might be very various, and even opposite in its nature; it is not here taken into consideration at all. Theodoret says well: πᾶσινεἰςθεωρίανπρόκειταιτὰἡμέτεραἄγγελοιμὲνγὰρτὴνἡμετέρανἀνδρίανθαυμάζουσι, τῶνδὲἀνθρώπωνοἱμὲνἐφήδονταιτοῖςἡμετέροιςπαθήμασιν, οἱδὲσυναλγοῦσιμὲν, ἐπαμῦναιδὲοὐκἰσχύουσιν.

The way in which the angels come in here, therefore, must not be regarded as simply proverbial and figurative (Baur).

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

[667] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

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

[672] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

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

1 Corinthians 4:10

1 Corinthians 4:10. What very different sort of people ye are from us!

μωροὶδιὰΧ.] for, because we concern ourselves about nothing else save Christ the crucified, are bent on knowing Him only, and on having nothing to do with the world’s wisdom (comp 1 Corinthians 2:2), we are foolish, weak-minded men, for Christ’s sake. Comp 1 Corinthians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 1:25.

φρόνιμοιἐνΧ.] wise men are ye in your connection with Christ, sagacious, enlightened Christians! Observe, that Paul could not write again διὰΧ.; the Christian pseudo-wisdom had other motives. The nature of the irony, “plena aculeis” (Calvin), with which he scourges the worldly state of things at Corinth, does not allow us to supply anything else here but ἐσμέν and ἐστέ.

ἀσθενεῖς] weak and powerless. For in trembling and humility they came forward, making little of human agency, trusting for all success to the simple word of Christ. Ye, on the contrary, are ἰσχυροί, men of power, able to take up an imposing attitude and to carry through great things. Comp 1 Corinthians 2:3; 2 Corinthians 13:2 ff; 2 Corinthians 10:10. By an arbitrary limitation, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius, and Estius refer ἀσθ. to their sufferings: “Quia multa mala patimur, nec resistimus quod est infirmitatis,” and ἰσχ.: “Mala, si qua occurrunt, facile repellitis,” Estius.

ἔνδοξοι] celebrated, highly honoured personages; ἄτιμοι: unhonoured, despised, Matthew 13:57; Hom. Il. i. 516; Plato, Legg. 6. p. 774 B, Euthyd. p. 281 C.

In the last clause the first person is the subject of the sarcastic antithesis, because Paul means now to speak at more length regarding the apostles.

1 Corinthians 4:11-13

1 Corinthians 4:11-13. Down to the present hour this despised condition of ours continues uninterruptedly, manifesting itself also (καί) in all manner of privations, sufferings, and humiliations.

The assumption that we are not to understand this ἄχριτῆςἄρτιὥρας, as also ἕωςἄρτι in 1 Corinthians 4:13,[680] in a strictly literal sense, is rash, seeing that, even apart from the fact that we have no other means of knowing the precise position of Paul at that time (comp 2 Corinthians 11:27), he is speaking here not of himself alone, but of the position of the apostles in general.

γυμνητεύομεν] i.e. we lack necessary raiment. Comp on γυμνός in Matthew 25:36; James 2:15; and Theile in loc[683] The verb, as used both in this sense and of being lightly armed, belongs to the later Greek. The form γυμνιτεύομεν (Lachmann and Tischendorf), although vouched for by a majority of the codd[684], is nothing but an ancient clerical error; see Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm. p. 21.

ΚΟΛΑΦΙΖ.] quite literally: we are beaten with fists. Comp Matthew 26:67; 1 Peter 2:20; 2 Corinthians 12:7. A concrete representation of rude maltreatment in general.

ἀστατοῦμεν] we are unsettled, have no abiding dwelling-place, Rufinus, Ep. 20. Theophylact: ἐλαυνόμεθα, φεύγομεν.

κοπιῶμενκ.τ.λ[686]] we toil hard, working with our own hands. Comp as regards Paul, 1 Corinthians 9:6 ff.; 2 Corinthians 11:7 ff.; 1 Thessalonians 2:9 ff.; 2 Thessalonians 3:8; Acts 20:34; and who is in a position to deny that others of the apostles too acted in the same way? Paul includes this among the elements of their despised condition, which he adduces; and he had a right to do so, for it was such in the eyes of the world, which could not and would not recognise and honour so noble a self-denial.

λοιδορ. εὐλογ. Κ.Τ.Λ[688]] The picture of the ignominious condition of the apostles is continued, and its effect heightened by the contrast of their demeanour. We are so utterly empty and void of all honour with others, that as respects those who revile (insult, see Dissen, a[689] Dem. de Cor. p. 294), persecute, and slander us (δυσφημ., see the critical remarks, and comp 1Ma 7:41; Aesch. Ag. 1078; Soph. El. 1182; Eur. Heracl. 600), we do not in any wise defend ourselves or seek vengeance against them (as men do who have honour to vindicate and maintain); but, on the contrary, wish good to our revilers, remain quiet and patient towards our persecutors, and give beseeching words to our slanderers.[691] Whether Paul says this in remembrance of the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:44, Luke 6:27 f., which became known to him by tradition (Rückert and others), is very dubious, considering the difference of expression; but the disposition required by Jesus lived in him.

ὡςπερικαθάρματακ.τ.λ[692]] Delineation, as a whole, of the condition hitherto—from 1 Corinthians 4:11 onwards—sketched in single traits: We have become as out-sweepings of the world, i.e. our experience has become such, as though we were the most utterly worthless of existing things, like dirt which men have swept off from the face of the world. The κόσμος is the world of men (Romans 3:6; Romans 5:12), corresponding to the πάντων which follows. ΠΕΡΙΚΆΘΑΡΜΑ (from ΠΕΡΙΚΑΘΑΊΡΩ, to cleanse round about, on every side) means quisquiliae, what one removes by cleansing, both in a literal sense and figuratively, like our offscourings, scum (Arrian. Diss. Epict. iii. 22. 78). The simple κάθαρμα is more common; and it especially is often found in this figurative sense in Demosthenes and later writers (see Wetstein, Loesner, Obss. p. 276 f.; comp also Kühner, II. p. 26). With this rendering Erasmus, H.

Stephanus, Beza, Estius, and others, including Rückert, de Wette, Ewald, Maier, Neander, Hofmann, are content, following Theodoret, Theophylact, and Oecumenius. ΚΑΘΆΡΜΑΤΑ, however, is likewise used to denote those who, in times of plague and other public calamities, were offered up to expiate the wrath of the gods (see Schol. a[694] Arist. Plut. 454; Bos, Exercitatt. p. 125 ff.; Munth. Obss. e Diod. p. 321 f.), and in Proverbs 21:18, περικάθαρμα corresponds to the Hebrew כֹּפֶר, while ΠΕΡΙΚΑΘΑΡΜΌς, too, in Plato, Legg. vii. p. 815 C, means lustratio, and ΠΕΡΙΚΑΘΑΡΤΉΡΙΟΝ in Hesychius (sub voce θεώματα), a sacrifice for purification; and, on these grounds, Luther and many others (among them Pott, Olshausen, Osiander) assume that Paul refers here to that Greek sacrificial custom (see especially Photius, Quaest. Amphil. 155), and means by περικάθ. expiatory sacrifices,—the idea of “reprobate, utterly worthless men” being at the same time essentially involved, inasmuch as such men were taken for sacrifices of that nature (see Bos and Grotius). According to this view, the sense would be: “contemnimur ut homines, qui ad iram Deorum ab omnibus hominibus avertendam sacrificio offeruntur,” Pott; and Olshausen asserts, in spite of the ὡς, that Paul ascribes a certain power even to his sufferings. Now the current and constant word for the expiatory offering is ΚΆΘΑΡΜΑ (not ΠΕΡΙΚΆΘΑΡΜΑ);[695] but, even supposing that Paul had conceived περικαθάρματα as piacula, he would in that case have again used the Plural περιψήματα in the next clause, for περίψημα is synonymous with περικάθαρμα, and each individual would be a piaculum.

If, on the other hand, he conceived περικαθάρματα as offscourings, castings away, he could very suitably interchange this phrase afterwards with the collective singular (rubbish).

πάντων-g0- περίψ-g0-.] The refuse of all. The emphasis lies on πάντων, and ὡς is to be supplied again before it. Περίψημα (what is removed by wiping) being substantially the same in meaning with περικάθαρμα (see Photius, s.v., Tob 5:18, and Fritzsche in loc[696]), has been as variously interpreted by the commentators.

ἕωςἄρτι] belongs to ἐγενήθ., and repeats with emphatic force at the close of the description the selfsame thought with which it had began in 1 Corinthians 4:11.

The torrent is at an end; now again we have the gentle stream of fatherly kindness, which, however, in 1 Corinthians 4:18 once more swells into sternness and threatening. Observe how Paul at this point abandons the comprehensive plural form (ἡμεῖς), in order now at the close of the section to make his readers feel again, in the most impressive way, that personal relation of his to them, which he, as being the founder of the church, was entitled in truth to urge on their attention, despite of all the party-strife which had crept in.

[680] The two expressions are synonymous; hence, too, this passage is a proof that the distinction between ἄχρι and μέχρι, maintained by Tittmann, Synon. p. 33 ff., is erroneous. See Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 308 ff.

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

[684] odd. codices or manuscripts. The uncial manuscripts are denoted by the usual letters, the Sinaitic by à.

[686] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

[688] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

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

[691] Παρακαλοῦμεν: being slandered, we entreat. See regarding παρακαλ., to entreat, Bleek on Heb. II. 1, p. 454 ff. Theophylact puts it happily: πρᾳοτέροιςλόγοιςκαὶμαλακτικοῖςἀμειβόμεθα. Comp. Acts 16:39. Grotius explains it: Deum pro ipsis precamur. But Deum and pro ipsis are unwarrantably inserted on the ground of Mat 5:10; Matthew 5:44. Compare rather 2Ma 13:23 : τοὺςἸουδαίουςπαρεκάλεσεν, he gave good words to the Jews.

[692] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

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

[695] Hence Valckenaer holds the reading of G, min., ὡσπερεὶκαλάρματα, to be the true be, because Paul “ritus Graecos noverat et linguam.”

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

1 Corinthians 4:14-21

1 Corinthians 4:14-21. Receive this censure (from 1 Corinthians 4:7 onwards) not as meant to put you utterly to shame, but as an admonition from your spiritual father, whom ye ought to copy (1 Corinthians 4:14-16), for which cause I have also sent Timothy to you (1 Corinthians 4:17). But I—this by way of warning to those who are puffed up!—hope soon to come to you myself; am I to come to punish, or in gentleness (1 Corinthians 4:18-21)?

1 Corinthians 4:15

1 Corinthians 4:15 justifies the ὡςτέκναμουἀγαπ. νουθετῶ.

For suppose ye have ten thousand tutors in Christ. On μυρίους,[704] compare Matthew 18:24; 1 Corinthians 14:19.

Respecting the paedagogi among the Greeks and Romans (comp אֹמֵן, 1 Chronicles 27:32; 2 Kings 10:1; 2 Kings 10:5; Esther 2:7; Rosenmller, Morgenl. VI. p. 272), who, for the most part slaves, had it in charge to educate and give constant attendance upon boys till they came of age, see Wetstein and Hermann, Privatalterth. § 34. 15 ff. The name is here given figuratively to the later workers in the church, the ΠΟΤΊΖΟΝΤΕς (1 Corinthians 3:6-8), the ἘΠΟΙΚΟΔΟΜΟῦΝΤΕς (1 Corinthians 3:10 ff.), in respect of their carrying on its further Christian development, after Paul (its father) had founded it, had given to it Christian life, had begotten it spiritually. Since the essential nature of the delineation here allowed of no other word alongside of πατέρας except παιδαγ., and since, moreover, Apollos also was reckoned among the παιδαγώγοις, we are not warranted in finding here expressed the idea of imperious and arrogant leadership on the part of the heads of parties (Beza, Calvin, and others, including Pott, Heydenreich, de Wette, Osiander). Compare, too, Erasmus: “paedagogus saevit pro imperio.” It is not even the inferior love of the later teachers (Chrysostom, Theophylact) that Paul wishes to make his readers sensible of, but only his rights as a father, which can be in no way impaired by all who subsequently entered the same field.

ἈΛΛʼ ΟὐΠ. ΠΑΤ.] sc[706] ἔχετε. The ἀλλά after a hypothetical protasis is the at of emphatic contrast, on the other hand (Nägelsbach on the Iliad, p. 43, ed. 3; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 11; Klotz, a[707] Devar. p. 93), and that, too, without a restrictive γέ, in the sense of at certe; see Kühner, a[708] Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 43.

ἐνγὰρΧριστῷκ.τ.λ[709]] i.e. for in the life-fellowship of Jesus Christ no other than I myself has begotten you, through the gospel. Just as ἐνΧριστῷ, in the first half of the verse, conveys the specific distinction of the ΠΑΙΔΑΓΏΓΟΥςἜΧΕΙΝ; so here, and that with the emphatic addition of ἸΗΣΟῦ, it conveys that of the moral generation, which has taken place, not out of Christ, but in Him as the element of its being; and ΔΙᾺΤΟῦΕὐΑΓΓΕΛ. (comp 1 Peter 1:23) is the means whereby this establishment of their existence in the Christian sphere of life has been brought about. In both these respects it differs from physical generation. The antithetic emphasis of the ἘΓΏ forbids us to refer ἘΝΧ. Ἰ. to the person of the apostle: “in my fellowship with Christ, i.e. as His apostle” (de Wette, comp Grotius, Calovius, Flatt, al[712]).

ἘΓΈΝΝΗΣΑ] Comp 1 Corinthians 4:17; Philemon 1:10; Galatians 4:19. Sanhedr. f. 19. 2 : “Quicunque filium socii sui docet legem, ad eum scriptura refert, tanquam si eum genuisset.”

[704] The distinction drawn by the old grammarians between μύριοι (a numeral proper) and μυρίοι (an indefinitely large number) is without foundation. See Buttmann, ausführl. Sprachl. I. p. 284; Ellendt, Lex Soph. II. p. 144.

[706] c. scilicet.

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

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

[709] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

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

1 Corinthians 4:16

1 Corinthians 4:16. Οὖν] since I am your father.

μιμ. μ. γίν.] become imitators of me. Paul does not add any more precise definition as to the matter (“in cura tutandae in ecclesia tum unitatis tum sanctitatis,” Grotius thinks, but without warrant in the context); but the connection of the passage, after 1 Corinthians 4:6-13, leaves no room for doubt that he has in view the discarding of conceit and self-seeking, and the putting on of humility and self-denial.

As regards the phrase μιμ. γίν., comp 1 Corinthians 11:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:14; Ephesians 5:1; Philippians 3:17; and as regards the idea, Xen. Mem. i. 6. 3 : οἱδιδάσκαλοιτοὺςμαθητὰςμιμητὰςἑαυτῶνἀποδεικνύουσιν.

1 Corinthians 4:17

1 Corinthians 4:17. Διὰτοῦτο] namely, in order to further among you this state of things meant by μιμ. μ. γίν. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Piscator, Rückert, Maier, make it refer to 1 Corinthians 4:15: “on this ground, because I am your father.” But that would convert 1 Corinthians 4:16, quite arbitrarily, into a strange parenthetical interpolation.

ἔπεμψαὑμ. Τιμ.] See Introd. § 2. He had already started upon his journey, but was not to arrive until after this Epistle had reached Corinth, 1 Corinthians 16:10; hence he must not be regarded as the bearer of it (Bleek).

τέκνονμου] comp 1 Timothy 1:2; 1 Timothy 1:18; 2 Timothy 1:2. The father sends to his children (1 Corinthians 4:14 f.) their brother, specially dear and faithful to himself, in whom, therefore, they too may have full trust. From the quite definite reference of ΤΈΚΝΑ in 1 Corinthians 4:14, comp 1 Corinthians 4:15, we are warranted in assuming with confidence that Timothy had been converted by Paul; his conversion, since in all likelihood he was from Lystra (see on Acts 16:1), being probably comprised in the statement in Acts 14:6-7; for in Acts 16:1 he is already a Christian.

ἐνΚυρίῳ] specifies the characteristic relation in which Timothy is his beloved and faithful child (comp Ephesians 6:21); for apart from the fellowship in faith and life with Christ, there is no relationship of father and son subsisting between Paul and Timothy at all. The expression is therefore not essentially different from ἘΝΠΊΣΤΕΙ, 1 Timothy 1:2. Comp 1 Corinthians 1:3.

ἈΝΑΜΝΉΣΕΙ] for the Corinthians seemed to have forgotten it.[719]

ΤᾺςὉΔΟΎςΜΟΥΤᾺςἘΝΧ.] i.e. the paths, which I tread in Christ (as my sphere of activity), i.e. in the service of Christ. The aim in view (διὰτοῦτο) is to lead them to imitate the apostle by reminding them of the whole way and manner, in which he conducted himself in his calling alike personally and relatively; for must not the recalling of that conduct vindicate his character, so much misunderstood and depreciated in Corinth, and place it in such a light as would show it to be worthy of imitation? more especially in respect of his self-denial and humility, so far removed from the arrogance and self-seeking of the Corinthians.

καθώς] is commonly taken as defining more precisely what has been already stated in a general way, as ὡς does in Romans 11:2, Luke 24:20, Thuc. i. 1, and frequently elsewhere. See Bornemann in Luc. p. 141. But καθώς means sicut (Vulgate), like the classical καθά or ΚΑΘΆΠΕΡ: even as, in such fashion as.[720] We must therefore abide by the meaning of the word, and interpret: he will recall to your memories my official conduct in such fashion, as I teach in all places; i.e. he will represent it to you not otherwise than as it is everywhere exemplified in me by my capacity as a teacher, not otherwise therefore than in correspondence with the invariable method in which I discharge the vocation of my life, not otherwise, in short, than as it actually is everywhere. In this way καθώς refers not to the contents of ΔΙΔΆΣΚΩ, nor to the mode of preaching (neither of which would stand in a relation of practical significance to ΜΙΜ. Μ. ΓΊΝ.), but to the peculiarity of character as a whole, which distinguished Paul in his work as a teacher.

παντ. ἐνπ. ἐκκλ.] This emphatic statement, with its double description, gives additional weight to the example to be imitated. Comp Acts 17:30; Acts 21:28.

[719] That Paul does not use διδάξει, to avoid giving offence, because Timothy was still young (Chrysostom, Theophylact), is an imagination pure and simple. Theodoret says aptly: λήθηνδὲαὐτῶνὁλόγοςκατηγορεῖαὐτόπταιγὰρἐγεγόνεισαντῆςἀποστολικῆςἀρετῆς.

[720] Billroth renders it rightly: eodem modo, quo, but inserts quite unwarrantably an ipse after the quo.

1 Corinthians 4:18

1 Corinthians 4:18. As though now I were not coming to you, some are puffed up. It is likely that these boasters, who belonged more probably to the Apollonians than to the Christ-party (1 Corinthians 4:19 f.), believed and affirmed that the apostle had not the courage to appear again in Corinth (2 Corinthians 10:1); and it is to prevent their being strengthened in their delusion by the mission of Timothy that Paul now adds these remarks, 1 Corinthians 4:18-20. Hence we are not to make the new section begin here (Tertullian and Theodoret referred ἐφυσ. τινες even to the incestuous person, 1 Corinthians 5:1, and Theophylact makes it include a reference to him); on the contrary, it breaks upon us suddenly, like a thunderstorm, in 1 Corinthians 5:1.

Upon δέ as the fourth word in a sentence, see Winer, p. 519 [E. T. 699].

ὡς, as, denotes: on the assumption that; see Matthiae, p. 1320. It introduces the ground of the ἐφυσιώθ. from the point of view of those that were puffed up. Comp Kühner, II. p. 374; Lobeck, a[723] Soph. Aj. 281.

ἐρχομ.] not for ἘΛΕΥΣΟΜΈΝΟΥ (Flatt), but indicative of the subsisting relation. “Paul is not coming” was their conception, and this made them bold and boastful; φιλαρχίαςγὰρτὸἔγκληματῇἐρημίᾳτοῦδιδασκάλουεἰςἀπόνοιανκεχρῆσθαι, Chrysostom.

ΤΙΝΈς] as in 1 Corinthians 15:12.

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

1 Corinthians 4:19

1 Corinthians 4:19. Ἐλεύσομαιδέ] the contrast emphatically put first: come, however, I will.

ταχέως] Comp Philippians 2:24; 2 Timothy 4:9. As to how long he thought of still remaining in Ephesus, see 1 Corinthians 16:8.

ὉΚΎΡΙΟς] to be understood not of Christ, but of God. See the critical remarks on Romans 15:32. Comp Romans 1:10; James 4:15.

ΓΝΏΣΟΜΑΙ] what and how the boasters speak (τὸνλόγον), Paul will, on his approaching visit, leave wholly without notice; but as regards the amount of energy put forth by them in producing results for the kingdom of God, of that he will take knowledge.

τὴνδύναμ.] namely, their power of working for the advancement of the βασιλ. τ. Θεοῦ, 1 Corinthians 4:20. To explain it as referring to the power of miracles (Chrysostom, Theophylact; not Grotius), or to the power of their virtues (Theodoret, Pelagius, Justin), is contrary to the context. Comp what Paul says of himself in 1 Thessalonians 1:5. This practically effective might, which has for its primary condition the true power of the Spirit (of which de Wette understands it; we may recall Paul himself, Luther, etc.), was what the boasters seemed to have, but they let the matter rest at words, which were altogether lacking in the strength to effect anything. How wholly otherwise it was with Paul himself! Comp 1 Corinthians 2:4; 2 Corinthians 6:7.

1 Corinthians 4:20

1 Corinthians 4:20. Justification of the γνώσομαιοὐτὸνλόγονκ.τ.λ[728] by an axiom.

ἐνλόγῳ and ἐνδυνάμει describe wherein the βασιλεία has its causal basis; it has the condition of its existence not in speech, but in power (see on 1 Corinthians 4:19). Comp on 1 Corinthians 2:5. The βασιλείατοῦΘεοῦ, again, is not here, as it never is elsewhere (see on Matthew 3:2; Matthew 6:10), and in particular never in Paul’s writings (neither in this passage nor in Romans 14:7; Colossians 1:13; Colossians 4:11; see on these verses), the church, or the kingdom of God in the ethical sense (Neander: “the fellowship of the divine life, which is brought about by fellowship with the Redeemer”), but the Messianic kingdom, in which, at its expected (speedy) manifestation, those only can become members who are truly believing and truly sanctified (Colossians 3:3 f.; Philippians 4:18-21; Ephesians 5:5, al[730]). But faith and holy living are not established by high-soaring speech (not by τὰἐντοῖςλόγοιςφαντάσματα, Plat. Soph. p. 234 E), but by δύναμις, which is able effectively to procure gain for the kingdom (Colossians 1:28 f.; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; 1 Corinthians 9:19 ff.; 2 Corinthians 10:4 f.).

[728] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

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

1 Corinthians 4:21

1 Corinthians 4:21. As the conclusion of the entire section, we have here another warning useful for the readers as a whole, indicating to them the practical application which they generally were to make of the assurance of his speedy coming. Lachmann, followed by Hofmann (after Oecumenius, Cajetanus, Beza, Calvin), begins the new section with 1 Corinthians 4:21. But this appears hardly admissible, since chap. 1 Corinthians 5:1 commences without any connective particle (such as ἀλλά, or δέ, or γάρ),[731] and since, too, in 1 Corinthians 5:1 ff. there is no further reference to the speedy arrival of the apostle.

ΤΊ] in the sense of ΠΌΤΕΡΟΝ. Comp Plato, Phil. p. 52 D, and Stallbaum in loc[733] He fears the first, and wishes the second. “Una quidem charitas est, sed diversa in diversis operatur,” Augustine.

ἐνῥάβδῳ] with a rod; but this is no Hebraism, for ἐν denotes in pure Greek the being provided with. Hebrews 9:25; 1 John 5:6. See Matthiae, p. 1340; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 284 [E. T. 330]. Comp Sir 47:4: ἘΝΛΊΘῼ, armed with a stone. Lucian, D. M. xxiii. 3 : καθικόμενοςἐντῇῥάβδῳ. The meaning of the figurative phrase, borrowed as it is from the relation of father, is: ἐνκολάσει, ἐντιμωρίᾳ, Chrysostom.

ἜΛΘΩ] am I to come? See Winer, p. 268 [E. T. 356]. Chrysostom puts it happily: ἐνὑμῖντὸπρᾶγμακεῖται.

πνεῦματίτεπραοτ.] not: with “a gentle spirit” (Luther, and most interpreters), so that πνεῦμα would be the subjective principle which should dispose the inner life to this quality; but: with the Spirit of gentleness, so that πνεῦμα is to be understood, with Chrysostom and Theophylact, of the Holy Spirit; and πραοτ. denotes that specific effect of this πνεῦμα (Galatians 5:22) which from the context is brought peculiarly into view. So in all the passages of the N. T. where ΠΝΕῦΜΑ, meaning the Holy Spirit, is joined with the genitive of an abstract noun; and in each of these cases the connection has indicated which effect of the Spirit was to be named. Hence He is called πνεῦματῆςἀληθείας (John 15:26; John 16:13; 1 John 4:6), ΥἹΟΘΕΣΊΑς (Romans 8:15), ΤῆςΠΊΣΤΕΩς (2 Corinthians 4:13), ΣΟΦΊΑς (Ephesians 1:17), ΔΥΝΆΜΕΩςΚ.Τ.Λ[735] (2 Timothy 1:7), just according as the one or other effect of His working is exhibited by the context as characteristic of Him. Respecting the present passage, comp 1 Corinthians 6:1. It is to be observed, moreover, that the apostolic rod of discipline too is wielded in the power of the Holy Spirit, so that the selfsame Spirit works as a Spirit of gentleness and of corrective severity: ἔστιγὰρπνεῦμαπραότητοςκαὶπνεῦμααὐστηρότητος, Chrysostom. Comp on Luke 9:55.

Instead of the form πραότης, Lachmann and Tischendorf have, in every passage in which it occurs in Paul’s writings, the later πραΰτης (except that in Galatians 6:1 Lachmann retains πραότης; see regarding both, Lobeck, a[738] Phryn. p. 403 f.). The change is justified by weighty testimony, especially that of A B C (although they are not unanimous in the case of all the passages). In the other places in which it is found, James 1:21; James 3:13, 1 Peter 3:15, πραΰτης is undoubtedly the true reading.

[731] For to regard 1 Corinthians 5:1 as an answer which Paul gives to himself unto his own question, as Hofmann does, is a forced device, which, in view of τίθέλετε alone, is not even logically practicable.

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

[735] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

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