1 Corinthians 6

CHAPTER 6

1 Corinthians 6:2. ἤ] is wanting in Elz., but has decisive evidence in its favour.—1 Corinthians 6:5. λέγω] Lachm. has λαλῶ, on the authority of B alone. In the absence of internal grounds for decision, this is too weakly attested, far weaker than in 1 Corinthians 15:34.

ἔνι] so Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Rück. Tisch., following B C L à, min[857] Chrys. Theodoret, al[858] How easily the familiar ἐστιν (so Elz.) would creep in!

σοφὸςοὐδὲεἷς] Lachm. and Rück. read οὐδεὶςσοφός, with B C à, min[859] Copt. Damasc. D* E, Clar. Germ. Aeth. Athan. have simply σοφός; F and G have οὐδὲεἷςσοφός.

In A, the whole passage 1 Corinthians 6:3-6 is wanting (from the similarity of the two last syllables ίστων in 1 Corinthians 6:2; 1 Corinthians 6:6). From this it appears that the evidence for οὐδεὶςσοφός certainly preponderates, against which, however, there must be set the difficulty of seeing why this reading should have undergone alteration. Were σοφὸςοὐδὲεἷς, on the other hand, the original reading (D*** L, most of the min[860] Vulg., both Syr[861] Ar. p. and the majority of the Fathers), we have in the first place a very natural explanation of the omission of οὐδὲεἷς (which Griesb. approves of), inasmuch as copyists went right on from σοφοΣ to ΟΣ, and the two other variations would then arise from dissimilar critical restorations of the text.—1 Corinthians 6:7. Elz. has ἐνὑμῖν, against decisive evidence. An interpretation.—1 Corinthians 6:8. καὶταῦτα] Lachm. Rück. and Tisch. have καὶτοῦτο, following A B C D E à, min[862] vss[863] and Fathers.

Rightly; the plural crept in, because two things were mentioned (ἀδικ. and ἀποστ.).—1 Corinthians 6:9. There is conclusive evidence for reading Θεοῦβασ. in place of βασ. Θεοῦ. In 1 Corinthians 6:10, again, this order is too weakly attested to be received.—1 Corinthians 6:10. The οὐ before κληρ. is wanting in A B C D E à, min[864] Copt. Ignat. Method.

Athan. Chrys. al[865] Deleted by Lachm. and Rck. with justice; for while the preceding Θεοῦ might in itself just as easily lead to the omission as (by repetition of the last syllable) to the insertion of the οὐ, the latter was favoured by 1 Corinthians 6:9.—1 Corinthians 6:14. ἡμᾶς] Elz. has ὑμᾶς, against decisive testimony (perhaps from Romans 8:11).

ἐξεγερεῖ] Lachm. and Ewald read ἐξεγείρει, with A D*. B and 67** have ἐξήγειρε. The Recept[866] should be adhered to, with Tisch., following C D*** E K L à, min[867] Vulg., both Syr[868] Copt. Aeth. Arr. and many Fathers. The connection makes the future necessary as the correlative relative of καταργήσει in 1 Corinthians 6:13, and the evidence in its favour is preponderant, in view of the divided state of the codd[869] for the other readings. As to ἐξήγειρε and ἐξεγείρει, the former looks like a mechanical repetition of the preceding tense, and the latter a slip of the pen.

ἢοὐκ (not the simple οὐκ) has decisive evidence on its side.—1 Corinthians 6:19. τὸσῶμα] Matth. and Tisch. read τὰσώματα upon insufficient evidence, part of which is in favour of the plural in 1 Corinthians 6:20 also. The alteration to the plural was naturally suggested by the connection.—1 Corinthians 6:20. καὶἐντῷπνεύματιὑμῶν, ἅτινάἐστιτοῦΘεοῦ is deleted by all modern editors (except Matth.) since Mill and Griesb., following A B C* D* E F G à, min[870] Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It. Method. Didym. Cyr. Maxim. Damasc. Tert. Cypr. Ir. Ambrosiast. and all the Latin Fathers. An ascetic addition, although a very old one (occurring even in the Syriac), which got into all the wider circulation because a church-lesson begins with δοξάσατε. Comp Reiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 165 ff.

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

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

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

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

[861] yr. Peschito Syriac

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

[863] ss. vss. = versions.

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

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

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

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

[868] yr. Peschito Syriac

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

[870] 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 6:1-11

1 Corinthians 6:1-11. The readers are not to go to law before the heathen (1 Corinthians 6:1-6); and generally, they are, instead of contending with one another, rather to suffer wrong than to do it, bearing in mind that the unrighteous shall not become partakers in the Messianic kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:7-10), and that they, as Christians, have become pure, holy, and righteous (1 Corinthians 6:11).

1 Corinthians 6:2

1 Corinthians 6:2. Ἢοὐκοἴδατεκ.τ.λ[879]] unveils the entire preposterousness of the course with which his readers were reproached in the indignant question of 1 Corinthians 6:1: “Dare any of you do that,—or know ye not?” etc. Only on the ground of this not knowing could you betake yourselves to such unworthy κρίνεσθαι! Σὺτοινυνὁμέλλωνκρίνεινἐκείνουςτότε, πῶςὑπʼ ἐκείνωνἀνέχῃκρίνεσθαινῦν; Chrysostom.

τὸνκόσμονκρινοῦσι] at the last judgment, namely, sitting along with Christ as judges over all who are not Christians (κόσμος). Comp as early a passage as Wis 3:8. We have here the same conception[881]—only generalized with respect to the subjects of judgment—as in Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30. It stands in essential and logical connection with the participation in the glory of Christ (1 Corinthians 4:8; Romans 8:17; 2 Timothy 2:11 f.), which Christians are to attain after the Parousia, and after they themselves have been judged (Romans 14:10; 2 Corinthians 5:10; 2 Timothy 4:1). We must not, however, refer this (with Hofmann) to the period of the reign of Christ and His people predicted in Revelation 20:4 (when the κόσμος, too, shall be subjected to their judicial authority), especially seeing that Chiliasm is a specifically Apocalyptic and not a Pauline conception; comp on 1 Corinthians 15:24. Chrysostom again, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theophylact, Schol. ap.

Matth., Erasmus, and others, explain it of an indirect, not literal judging, namely, either by the faith and life of Christians placing the guilt of the κόσμος in a clearer light in the day of judgment (Matthew 12:41), or by their approving of the judicial sentence of Christ (Estius, Maier). But this (although assumed by Billroth as the ideal truth which underlay the words of the apostle, unconsciously to himself) is an alteration of the sense which runs counter to the context; for the whole argument a majori ad minus is destroyed, if κρινοῦσι is to be understood in a one-sided way as equivalent to κατακρ., and if no proper and personal act of judgment is designed.[883] It is a mistake also to hold, with Lightfoot, Vitringa, Baumgarten, Bolten, that Paul means quod Christiani futuri sint magistratus (Lightfoot), which is at variance with 1 Corinthians 6:3, and with the conception of the speedily approaching Parousia. Mosheim, Ernesti, Nösselt, Rosenmüller, and Stolz turn the “shall judge” into “can judge,” comparing 1 Corinthians 2:15-16. But this, too, is to alter the notion of κρίνειν in a way contrary to the text (judge of); and the can, since it would have an emphasis of special significance here, and would denote “be in a position to,” would require to be expressly inserted. Comp rather the prophetic basis of the thought in Daniel 7:22.

καὶεἰἐνὑμῖνκ.τ.λ[885]] The quick striking in of the ΚΑΊ in the very front of the question is as in 1 Corinthians 6:2; see also Fritzsche, a[886] Marc. p. 123.

ΕἸἘΝὙΜ. ΚΡ. ὉΚΌΣΜ.] repeats with emphasis, and with an individualizing force (ὙΜῖΝ), the contents of the truth already stated and established to the believing consciousness (hence the present ΚΡΊΝΕΤΑΙ). The ἘΝὙΜῖΝ, here emphatically put first, does not mean, as Chrysostom and Theophylact think,[887] in your instance, exemplo vestro (see above), but among you, i.e. in consessu vestro (see Kypke, II. p. 199), so that the essential meaning is not different from coram (Ast, a[888] Plat. Leg. p. 33. 285); comp ἘΝΔΙΚΑΣΤΑῖς, Thuc. i. 53. 1, ἘΝΝΟΜΟΘΈΤΑΙςΚ.Τ.Λ[890] See, too, the passages in Wetstein. The ἐν therefore by no means stands for ὑπό (Raphel, Flatt, al[891]), although we may gather from the context that the ὑμεῖς are themselves the parties judging (1 Corinthians 6:2; 1 Corinthians 6:4). Nor has it the force of through (Grotius, Billroth, al[892]), in support of which it is a mistake to appeal to Acts 17:31, where, owing to the connection, ἐν stands in a wholly different relation from what it denotes here. Here the word ἐν is selected in view of the following κριτήρια, the Christians, who are in future to judge, being conceived of, in order to the more vivid representation of the idea, as a judicial assembly.

ἀνάξ. ἐστεκριτ. ἐλαχ.] κριτήριον does not mean matter of dispute, case at law, as most expositors (even Pott, Flatt, Rückert, de Wette, Osiander, Maier, Ewald) wish to take it, with no evidence at all from the usage of the language in their favour, but place of judgment (tribunal, seat of justice, James 2:6; Plato, Legg. vi. p. 767 B; Susanna, 49), or judicial trial which is held (judicium). Comp the precept: μὴἐρχέσθωἐπὶκριτήριονἐθνικόν, Constitt. ap. ii. 45. Precisely so with δικαστήριον. The latter sense, judicial trial (Lucian, bis accus. 25; Polybius, ix. 33. 12, xvi. 27. 2; Judges 5:10; Daniel 7:10; Daniel 7:26), is the true one here, as is evident from 1 Corinthians 6:4. We render therefore: Are ye unworthy to hold very trivial trials? i.e. trials in which judgment is to be given upon very insignificant matters (in comparison with the lofty and important functions which are to devolve upon you when the future judgment shall be held). The Vulgate translates freely but correctly as to the sense: “indigni estis, qui de minimis judicetis?” According to Chrysostom and Theophylact, others understand here the heathen courts of justice, either affirmatively (so, as it appears, Chrysostom and Theophylact themselves; so, too, Valckenaer, al[894]) or interrogatively (Billroth): and that it is unworthy of you to be judged before courts of so low a kind?

Similarly, Olshausen. But 1 Corinthians 6:4 is decisive against this; for we have there the very same thing which in 1 Corinthians 6:2 is expressed by κριτηρ. ἐλαχ., described as βιωτικὰκριτήρια.

[879] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

[881] Observe that this view necessarily presupposes the resurrection of unbelievers also (Acts 17:31). Comp. on 1 Corinthians 15:24.

[883] Hence, too, it is unsuitable to transform the concrete meaning of this question into a general participation in the reign of Christ (Flatt, Heydenreich).

[885] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

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

[887] Comp. too, van Hengel, ad Rom. ii. 27: “vita vestra cum vita eorum comparanda.”

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

[890] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

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

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

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

1 Corinthians 6:3-4

1 Corinthians 6:3-4. Climactic parallels to 1 Corinthians 6:2, 1 Corinthians 6:3 corresponding to the first half of the preceding verse, and 1 Corinthians 6:4 to the second; hence 1 Corinthians 6:4 also should be taken as a question.

ἀγγέλους] angels, and that—since no defining epithet is added—in the good sense, not as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Calovius, Bengel, and most commentators make it, demons (Jude 1:6; 2 Peter 2:4), nor good and bad angels (so Cornelius a Lapide, al[895]; also, as it would appear, Hofmann). Other expositors, such as Grotius, Billroth, Rückert, de Wette, leave the point undecided. But comp on 1 Corinthians 4:9. That angels themselves shall come within the sphere of the judicial activity of glorified believers, is stated here as a proposition established to the believing consciousness of the readers,—a proposition, the ground for which is to be found in the fact that in Christ, whose glorified saints will reign with Him, is given the absolute truth and the absolute right, and, consequently, the highest judicial court of resort, even as regards the world of angels, from the jurisdiction of which not even the loftiest of created beings can be excepted. There is nothing of a more detailed nature on this subject in the N. T.; but comp in general, Hebrews 1:14, according to which their service must be one for which they are to render an account; and Galatians 1:8, according to which, in a certain supposed case, they would incur an ἀνάθεμα.[898] All modes of explaining away the simple meaning of the words are just as inadmissible as in 1 Corinthians 6:2; as, for example, Chrysostom: ὅτανγὰραἱἀσώματοιδυνάμειςαὗταιἔλαττονἡμῶνεὑρεθῶσινἔχουσαιτῶνσάρκαπεριβεβλημένων, χαλεπωτέρανδώσουσιδίκην; Erasmus: “vestra pietas illorum impietatem, vestra innocentia illorum impuritatem condemnabit;” Calovius: the judicium is approbativum, making manifest, that is to say, before the whole world the victory of the saints already in this life over the devil; Lightfoot: what is meant is, that the influence of the kingdom of Satan is to be destroyed by Christianity; while Nösselt, Ernesti, and Stolz make it ability to judge, if an angel were to preach a false gospel (Galatians 1:8).

μήτιγεβιωτικά] is not to be included in the question, so that we should have to put only a comma after κρινοῦμεν (as Tischendorf does). For βιωτικά, things which belong to the necessities of this life, disputes as to the meum and tuum, (comp Polybius, xiii. 1. 3 : τῶνβιωτικῶνσυναλλαγμάτων), will not be among the subjects of the future judgment, to which κρινοῦμεν refers. We must retain, therefore, the mark of interrogation after κρινοῦμεν (Lachmann), and put a full stop after βιωτ., so that μήτιγεβιωτ. may be seen to be the condensed conclusio: to say nothing then of private disputes! i.e. How far less can it be doubtful that we have to judge βιωτικά! Comp Dem. Ol. i. (ii.) 23, and Bremi in loc[901] p. 159.

See generally as to μήτιγε (found only here in the N. T.), nedum sc[902] dicam; Herm. a[903] Viger. p. 803; Schaefer, Appar. ad Dem. I. p. 265; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 154 f. Regarding the relation of βιωτικός to the later Greek, see Lobeck, a[904] Phryn. p. 355.

The antithesis of ἀγγέλους and βιωτικά turns on this, that the former belong to the higher superterrestrial sphere of life (ὡςἂνἐκείνωνοὐκατὰτὸνβίοντοῦτονὄντων, Theodore of Mopsuestia). The ἀγγέλ. without the, article is qualitative.

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

[898] Observe also the different classes of angels referred to in Romans 8:38; Ephesians 1:21; Colossians 1:16; 1 Peter 3:22. We cannot conceive these distinctions in rank to exist without ethical grounds. Moreover, the angels are not to be regarded as absolutely good, Mark 10:18. Comp. on Colossians 1:20.

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

[902] c. scilicet.

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

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

1 Corinthians 6:4

1 Corinthians 6:4. Βιωτικὰμὲνοὖνκ.τ.λ[905]] takes up βιωτ. at once again with emphasis. Comp Herod. vii. 104: ΤᾺἊΝἘΚΕῖΝΟςἈΝΏΓῌἈΝΏΓΕΙΔῈΤΑὐΤῸἈΕΊ.

The sentence may be understood as a question (of astonishment), so de Wette, Tischendorf, Ewald, al[907]; or as a reproachful statement, so Lachmann. The former, if τ. ἐξουθ. be correctly explained, corresponds best with the whole structure of this animated address (see on 1 Corinthians 6:3). ΜῈΝΟὖΝ is the simple accordingly, thus.[908] Κριτήρια are here also not lawsuits, but judicia, as in 1 Corinthians 6:2. The meaning therefore is: If ye then have courts of trial as to private matters, i.e. if ye are in such circumstances as to have to hold courts of that kind. Comp Dem. 1153. 4 : ἘΧΌΝΤΩΝΤᾺςΔΊΚΑς, qui lites habent administrandas. Hofmann’s rendering is a most involved one, making βιωτ. κριτ. predicate to τοὺςἐξουθ. ἐντ. ἐκκλ., and ἘᾺΝἘΧ. a parenthetical clause, to which we are to supply as its object ἐχουθενημένους.[910]

καθίζετε] do ye—instead of taking some from among yourselves for this purpose—set those down, etc.? namely, upon the judgment-seat as judges, which follows from κριτήρια. Comp Plato, Legg. ix. p. 873 E; Dem. 997. 23; Polyb. ix. 33. 12. It is the indicative, and the ἐξουθενήμ. ἐντ. ἐκκλ. are the heathen. So in substance Valla, Faber, Castalio, Luther, Calovius, Wolf, al[912], including Pott, Flatt, Heydenreich, Schrader, Rückert, Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald, Maier, Neander, Weiss; Osiander is undecided. To this it is objected that ΚΑΘΊΖ. does not suit heathen magistrates, and that ἘΝΤ. ἘΚΚΛ, indicates the ἘΞΟΥΘ. as members of the church (see especially Kypke, II. p. 201). But neither objection is valid; for the term ΚΑΘΊΖΕΤΕ is purposely selected as significant of the strange audacity shown in making the matter in dispute dependent on the decision of a heathen court, and that in special keeping with the contrast (τοὺςἐξουθ.), while the text does not give ΤΟῪςἘΝΤῇἘΚΚΛ.

Moreover, by Τ. ἘΞΟΥΘ., Paul does not mean to describe the contempt for the heathen as justifiable (Hofmann’s objection), but simply as existing, as a fact, however, the universal existence of which made the absurdity of the procedure here censured very palpable. Other interpreters make καθίζ. imperative, and the ἐξουθ. members of the church held in small account: take (rather) minimos de piorum plebe as arbiters. So the Vulgate, Peschito, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Vatablus, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Bengel, Wetstein, Hofmann, al[913] But not to speak of the rather generally supplied from imagination, nor of the fact that to designate those less capable of judging as τ. ἐξουθ. ἐντ. ἐκκλ. would be far from wise, and likely to lend countenance to the specially Corinthian conceit of knowledge,—if this were the true sense, Paul would have had to lay stress upon the church-membership of the despised persons, and must have written at least τοὺςἐξουθ. τοὺςἐντ. ἐκκλ. For ΟἹἘΞΟΥΘ. ἘΝΤ. ἘΚΚΛ. are those who are despised in the church, which leaves it altogether to the context to decide whether they themselves belong to the church or not. Now, that the latter is the case here is shown by 1 Corinthians 6:1-2, and especially by 1 Corinthians 6:5: οὐκἔνιἐνὑμῖν. Arrangements of words like ΤΟῪςἘΞΟΥΘ. ἘΝΤῇἘΚΚΛ. for ΤΟῪςἘΝΤ. ἘΚΚΛ. ἘΞΟΥΘ. are common enough in classical writers also.

See Kühner, a[914] Xen. Anab. iv. 2. 18.

τούτους] with an emphasis of disdain. See Dissen, a[915] Dem, de Cor. p. lii. f., 225; Krüger, Anab. i. 6. 9; Ellendt, Lex Soph. II. p. 460.

[905] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

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

[908] Introducing the more detailed development of the thought to which expression had been given already. See Baeumlein, Partik. p. 181.

[910] How meaningless this would be! Moreover, see below. Comp. also Laurent. neutest. Stud. p. 127.

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

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

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

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

1 Corinthians 6:5

1 Corinthians 6:5. Πρὸςἐντρ. ὑμῖνλέγω] is to be referred, as is done by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Neander, and Hofmann, to 1 Corinthians 6:4, comp 1 Corinthians 15:34 (it is commonly referred to what comes after), so that the following question unfolds the humiliating consideration involved in 1 Corinthians 6:4. The address thus acquires more point and impressiveness.

οὕτως] belongs not to ΛΈΓΩ (Hofmann), but to ΟὐΚἜΝΙΚ.Τ.Λ[917], and sums up the state of things: sic igitur, rebus ita comparatis, since you τοὺςἐξουθενημένουςκαθίζετε. See Bornemann in Rosenmüller’s Repert. II. p. 245 ff.; Hermann, a[918] Viger. p. 933. C. Fr. Hermann, a[919] Lucian. de hist. conscr. p. 161. It is otherwise understood by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, al[920], including Flatt, Billroth, Rückert, Olshausen, Ewald, who make it: so much, so completely is there lacking, etc. But it is only the definition of mode, not of degree, that will suit the absolute negation of this clause, intensified as it is by οὐδὲεἷς.

Regarding ἔνι, see on Galatians 3:28. The σοφός carries point against the Corinthian self-conceit.

οὐδὲεἷς] ne unus quidem. “Quod est vehementius,” as Erasmus well puts it, “cum sitis tum multi.” See on John 1:3, and Krüger, Anab. iii. 1. 3; Bornemann and Poppo, a[921] Cyrop. ii. 1. 21. Comp non ullus (Kühner, a[923] Cic. Tusc. i. 39. 94) nemo unus (Locella, a[924] Xen. Eph. p. 137). Frequent in Isocr., see Bremi, I. Exc. iii.

ὃςδυνήσεται] purely future in force: who (as cases shall occur) will be able.

διακρῖναι] to judge, as arbitrator.

ἀνὰμέσοντ. ἀδ. αὐτοῦ] between (LXX. Genesis 16:5; Exodus 11:7; Ezekiel 22:26; Isaiah 57:11; Matthew 13:25; Theocr. xxii. 21; Strabo, xi. 5. 1, p. 503; Polyb. x. 48. 1, v. 55. 7) his (Christian) brother. The expression, τ. ἀδελφοῦ, is meant to put to shame. The singular is used for this reason, that τοῦἀδελφοῦ must mean the plaintiff who brings on the lawsuit (not the defendant, as Ewald would have it), between whom (and, as is obvious, the defendant) the arbitrator, called into requisition by the bringing of the suit, pronounces his decision. Were the plural employed, that would indicate the two litigants generally, but not the party bringing on the suit in particular. Hofmann, contrary to the plain meaning of the words, understands the phrase of the self-decision of the individual demanding or refusing, namely, as to the point where his right ceased and his wrong began.

In that case, Paul, if he wished to be intelligible, would have required to say something like this: διακρῖναιἐνἑαυτῷπρὸςτὸνἀδελφὸναὐτοῦ. Moreover, οὐδὲεἷς (or οὐδείς, as Hofmann reads) would militate against this view, seeing that it contains what would be, according to 1 Corinthians 6:1, a disproportionate accusation, if the meaning is not, “not a single man fitted to be an arbitrator.”

The reading, τ. ἀδεκφοῦκ. τοῦἀδελφοῦαὐτοῦ (Syr[925] Arr.), is an interpretation, although recommended by Grotius and again by Laurent.

[917] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[925] yr. Peschito Syriac

1 Corinthians 6:6

1 Corinthians 6:6. Quick reply to the preceding question: No (see Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 37; Baeumlein, Partikell. p. 10 f.) brother goes to law with brother, and that (see on Romans 13:11) before unbelievers.[926] How then can there be such a wise man among you? He would assuredly, by his intervention as arbitrator, keep the matter from coming to a lawsuit, which, as between Christian brethren, and that, too, before a heathen court, is altogether unfitting and unworthy! Κρίνεται in precisely the same sense as in 1 Corinthians 6:1, κρίνεσθαιἐπὶτῶνἀδίκων.

[926] To take the sentence as a reproachful assertion (so Luther, Beza, Lachmann, Osiander, Hofmann), makes the passage sterner and more telling than the common way of viewing it as a question, which is adopted also by Tischendorf and Ewald.

1 Corinthians 6:7

1 Corinthians 6:7. Μὲνοὖν] as in 1 Corinthians 6:4; it now brings under special consideration the foregoing ἀδελφ. μετὰἀδ. κρίνεται—namely, as to what the real character of such a proceeding may be in itself viewed generally (ὅλως being taken as in 1 Corinthians 5:1), apart from the special element unhappily added in Corinth, ἐπὶἀπίστων. The μέν corresponds as little (against Hofmann) to the ἀλλά which follows in 1 Corinthians 6:8, as the μέν in 1 Corinthians 6:4 to the ἀλλά in 1 Corinthians 6:6. The ἤδη is the logical already (“already then, viewed generally”), in reference to something special, by which the case is made yet worse. Comp Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 240 f.

ἥττημα] a defeat (see on Romans 11:12), i.e. damage, loss, and that, according to the context, not moral decay (so commonly), or hurt to the church (Hofmann), or imperfection (Billroth, Rückert), or weakness (Beza); but, it redounds to your coming short of the Messianic salvation (see 1 Corinthians 6:9).

ἑαυτῶν] like ἀλλήλων, but giving them to feel, more strongly than the latter would, the impropriety which had a place in their own circle (Kühner, a[928] Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 20).

κρίματα] as in Romans 5:16, Wis 12:12, legal judgments, which they had respectively obtained (ἔχετε).

ἀδικεῖσθε … ἀποστερ.] middles: to allow wrong and loss to be inflicted on themselves. Comp Vulgate. See Bernhardy, p. 346 f. As to the matter itself, see Matthew 5:39 ff.; example of Jesus, 1 Peter 2:23.

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

1 Corinthians 6:8

1 Corinthians 6:8. The question beginning with διατί in 1 Corinthians 6:7 still continues: Why do ye not rather allow yourselves to suffer wrong, etc., and not, on your part, do wrong, etc.? This view, instead of the ordinary one, which makes 1 Corinthians 6:8 an independent sentence like 1 Corinthians 6:6, is necessary, because ἢοὐκοἴδατε in 1 Corinthians 6:9 has its logical reference in διατί. The reference, namely, is this: “There is no ground conceivable for your not,” etc. (διατί … ἀδελφούς),” unless that ye knew not,” etc. (ἢοὐκοἴδατε).

καὶτοῦτοἀδελφούς] to whom nevertheless, as your brethren, the very opposite was due from you! With respect to the climactic κ. τοῦτο, and that, see on Romans 12:11, and Baeumlein, Partik. p. 147.

1 Corinthians 6:9

1 Corinthians 6:9. Ἤοὐκοἴδατε] See on 1 Corinthians 6:8. To supply an unexpressed thought here (“Do not regard the matter lightly,” Billroth; “This is a far greater ἥττημα,” Ruckert; that ἥττημα to the church “they could only fail to perceive, if they did not know,” etc., Hofmann) is just as arbitrary as to do so in 1 Corinthians 6:2.

ἄδικοι] the general conception (under which the preceding ἀδικεῖν and ἀποστ. are included): unrighteous, immoral. See the enumeration which follows.

Θεοῦβασιλ.] the Θεοῦ coming close after ἄδικοι, and put first for emphasis (see the critical remarks). As to the truth itself, that ἀδικία excludes from the Messiah’s kingdom, see on Galatians 5:21; and as regards what is implied in the Messianic κληρονομία, on Galatians 3:18; Ephesians 1:11.

μὴπλανᾶσθε] for that moral fundamental law was more easily, it is plain, flung to the winds in frivolous Corinth than anywhere else! Possibly, too, some might even say openly: φιλάνθρωποςὢνὁΘεὸςκαὶἀγαθὸς, οὐκἐπεξέρχεταιτοῖςπλημμελήμασιμὴδὴφοβηθῶμεν! Chrysostom. Hence: be not mistaken (πλανᾶσθε, passive, as also in 1 Corinthians 15:33; Galatians 6:7; Luke 21:8; James 1:16; comp the active form in 1 John 3:7), followed by the emphatic repetition of that fundamental law with a many-sided breaking up of the notion ἄδικοι into particulars, not, however, arranged systematically, or in couples, nor reducible, save by force, to any logical scheme;[931] in this enumeration, owing to the state of matters in the place, the sins of sensuality are most amply specified.

πόρνοι, fornicators in general; μοιχοί, adulterers, Hebrews 13:4.

εἰδωλολ.] see on v. 11.

μαλακοί] effeminates, commonly understood as qui muliebria patiuntur, but with no sufficient evidence from the usage of the language (the passages in Wetstein and Kypke, even Dion. Hal. vii. 2, do not prove the point); moreover, such catamites (molles) were called πόρνοι or κίναιδοι. One does not see, moreover, why precisely this sin should be mentioned twice over in different aspects. Rather therefore: effeminate luxurious livers. Comp Aristotle, Eth. vii. 7 : μαλακὸςκαὶτρυφῶν, Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 20, also μαλακῶς, iii. 11. 10 : τρυφὴδὲκαὶμαλθακία, Plato, Rep. p. 590 B.

ἀρσενοκοῖται] sodomites, who defile themselves with men (1 Timothy 1:10; Eusebius, Praep. evang. p. 276 D). Regarding the wide diffusion of this vice, see the passages in Wetstein; comp on Romans 1:27, and Hermann, Privatalterth. § 29. 17 ff.

[931] Comp. Ernesti, Ursprung der Sünde, II. p. 29 f.

1 Corinthians 6:11

1 Corinthians 6:11. How unworthy are such of your new Christian relations!

ταῦτα] of persons in a contemptuous sense: such trash, such a set. See Bernhardy, p. 281.

τινές] more exact definition of the subject of ἦτε, namely, that all are not meant. It is the well-known σχῆμακαθʼ ὅλονκαὶμέρος (Kühner, II. p. 156). Comp Grotius. Valckenaer says well: “vocula τινές dictum paulo durius emollit.” Billroth is wrong in holding (as Vorstius before him) that ταῦτάτινες belong to each other, and are equivalent to τοιοῦτοι. In that case ταῦτάτινα would be required, or τοῖοίτινες. See Ast, a[935] Plat. Legg. p. 71; Bornemann, a[936] Xen. Cyr. ii. 1. 2; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 832.

ἀπελούσ. κ.τ.λ[937]] describes from step to step the new relations established by their reception of Christianity. First of all: ye washed yourselves clean, namely, by your immersion in the waters of baptism, from the moral defilement of the guilt of your sins (you obtained, through means of baptism, the forgiveness of your sins committed before you became Christians). Comp Acts 22:16; Acts 2:38; Ephesians 5:26; 1 Peter 3:21. Observe the use of the middle, arising from the conception of their self-destination for baptism. Comp ἘΒΑΠΤΊΣΑΝΤΟ, 1 Corinthians 10:2. We must not take the middle here for the passive, as most expositors do, following the Vulgate (so Flatt, Pott, Billroth, Olshausen, Ewald), which in part arose—as in the case of Olshausen—from dogmatical preconceptions; neither is it to be understood, with Usteri (Lehrbegriff, p. 230) and Rückert (comp Loesner, p. 278), of moral purification by laying aside everything sinful, of the putting off the old man (comp Romans 6:2 ff.), against which the same phrase in Acts 22:16, and the analogous one, ΚΑΘΑΡΊΣΑς, in Ephesians 5:26, militate strongly.

This moral regeneration exists in connection with baptism (Titus 3:5), but is not designated by ἀπελούσ., although its subjective conditions, ΜΕΤΆΝΟΙΑ and ΠΊΣΤΙς, are presupposed in the latter expression. The producing of regeneration, which is by water and Spirit, is implied in the ἡγιάσθητε which follows: ye became (from being unholy, as ye were before baptism) holy, inasmuch, namely, as by receiving the δωρεὰτοῦἁγίουπνεύματος (Acts 2:38) ye were translated into that moral altitude and frame of life which is Christian and consecrated to God (John 3:5; Titus 3:5; Ephesians 5:25, ἉΓΙΆΣῌ). Rückert and Olshausen take it in the theocratic sense: “ye became set apart, numbered among the ἍΓΙΟΙ.” Comp Osiander, also Hofmann: “incorporated in the holy church.” But the progression of thought here, which marks its advance towards a climax by the repetition of the ἀλλά, requires, not a threefold description of the transaction involved in baptism (Calvin, Hofmann), but three different characteristic points, dating their commencement from baptism, and forming, as regards their substance, the new moral condition of life from which those who have become Christians ought not again to fall back.

ἐδικαιώθητε] ye were made righteous. This, however, cannot mean the imputative justification of Rom 3:21 (de Wette, Osiander, Hofmann, with older commentators); because, in the first place, this is already given in the ἀπελούσασθε; and secondly, because the ἘΔΙΚΑΙΏΘΗΤΕ, if used in this sense, would have needed not to follow the ἉΓΙΆΣΘΗΤΕ, but to precede it, as in 1 Corinthians 1:30; for to suppose a descending climax (Calovius) is out of the question, if only on account of the ἀπελούσ., which so manifestly indicates the beginning of the Christian state. What is meant, and that by way of contrast to the notion of ἀδικία which prevails in 1 Corinthians 6:9 f., is the actual moral righteousness of life,[943] which has been brought about as the result of the operation of the Spirit which began with baptism, so that now there is seen in the man the fulfilment of the moral demands or of the δικαίωματοῦνόμου (Romans 8:4), and he himself, being dead unto sin, δεδικαίωταιἀπὸτῆςἁμαρτίας (Romans 6:7), and ἐδουλώθητῇδικαιοσύνῃ (Romans 6:18), whose instruments his members have now become in the καινότης of the spirit and life (Romans 6:13). This δικαιωθῆναι does not stand related to the ἁγιασθῆναι in any sort of tautological sense, but is the effect and outcome of it, and in so far, certainly, is also the moral continuatio justificationis (comp Calovius), Revelation 22:11.

The thrice repeated ἀλλά lays a special emphasis upon each of the three points. Comp Xenophon, Anab. v. 8. 4; Aristophanes, Acharn. 402 ff.; 2 Corinthians 2:17; 2 Corinthians 7:11; Wyttenbach, a[946] Plat. Phaed. p. 142; Bornemann, a[947] Xen. Symp. iv. 53; Buttmann, neut. Gramm. p. 341 [E. T. 398].

ἐντῷὀνόματι … ἡμῶν] is by most expositors made to refer to all the three points. But since ἐντῷπνεύματικ.τ.λ[948] does not accord with ἈΠΕΛΟΎΣ. (for the Spirit is only received after baptism, Acts 2:38; Acts 19:5-6; Titus 3:5-6; the case in Acts 10:47 is exceptional), it is better, with Rückert, to connect ἐντῷὀνόματι … ἡμῶν simply with ἘΔΙΚΑΙΏΘ., which best harmonizes also with the significant importance of the ἐδικαιώθητε as the crowning point of the whole transformation wrought in the Christian. The name of the Lord Jesus, i.e. what pronouncing the name “ΚύριοςἸησοῦς” (1 Corinthians 12:3) affirms,—this, as the contents of the faith and confession, is that in which the becoming morally righteous had its causal basis (ἘΝ), and equally had it its ground in the Spirit of our God, since it was He who established it by His sanctifying agency; through that name its origin was subjectively conditioned, and through that Spirit it was objectively realized. Were we, with Hofmann, to bring ἐντῷὀνόματι … Θεοῦἡμῶν into connection with the ΠΆΝΤΑΜΟΙἜΞΕΣΤΙΝ which follows, the latter would at once become limited and defined in a way with which the antitheses ἈΛΛʼ Κ.Τ.Λ[949] would no longer in that case harmonize. For it is precisely in the absoluteness of the πάνταμοιἔξεστιν that these antitheses have their ethical correctness and significance, as being the moral limitation of that axiom, which therefore appears again absolutely in 1 Corinthians 10:23.

Observe, further, how, notwithstanding of the defective condition of the church in point of fact, the aorists ἡγιάσθ. and ἐδικαιώθ. have their warrant as acts of God, and in accordance with the ideal view of what is the specifically Christian condition, however imperfectly as yet this may have been realized, or whatever backsliding may have taken place. The ideal way of speaking, too, corresponds to the design of the apostle, who is seeking to make his readers feel the contradiction between their conduct and the character which as Christians they assumed at conversion; σφόδραἐντρεπτικῶςἐπήγαγελέγωνἐννοήσατεἡλίκωνὑμᾶςἐξείλετοκακῶνὁΘεόςκ.τ.λ[950], Chrysostom. And thereby he seeks morally to raise them.

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

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

[937] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

[943] There is therefore no warrant for adducing this passage, as is done on the Roman Catholic side (even by Döllinger), in opposition to the distinction between justification and sanctification. Justification is comprised already in ἀπελούσ. Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. pp. 342, 345 ff. Its subjective basis, however, is one with that of sanctification, namely, faith.

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

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

[948] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

[949] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

[950] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

1 Corinthians 6:12-20

1 Corinthians 6:12-20. Correction of the misunderstanding of Christian liberty, as though fornication, equally with the use of meats, came under the head of things allowable (1 Corinthians 6:12-17). Admonitions against fornication (1 Corinthians 6:18-20).

1 Corinthians 6:13

1 Corinthians 6:13. Τῇκοιλίᾳ] sc[962] ἔστι, belong to, inasmuch, that is to say, as they are destined to be received and digested by the belly (the ὑποδοχῆτῶνσιτίων, Photius in Oecumenius). Comp Matthew 15:17.

ΤΟῖςΒΡΏΜΑΣΙΝ] inasmuch as it is destined to receive and digest the food.

This reciprocal destination according to nature is the first element, which, in its relation to the second half of the verse, is intended to call attention to the fact, that the case of fornication is totally different from that of the use of food,—that the latter, being in accordance with its destination, belongs to the category of the adiaphora; while fornication, on the other hand, which is anti-Christian, is contrary to the relation of the body to Christ. The second element (which, however, is very closely connected with the first), by which this is made manifest, consists in what God will hereafter do on the one hand with the κοιλίᾳ and the ΒΡΏΜΑΣΙ, and on the other hand (1 Corinthians 6:14) in respect of the body’s relation as pertaining to Christ, which latter relation is imperishable, in contrast to the perishable nature of the things first mentioned.

ὉΔῈΘΕῸς … ΚΑΤΑΡΓ.] i.e. God, however, will (at the Parousia) cause such a change to take place in the bodily constitution of man and in the world of sense generally, that neither the organs of digestion as such, nor the meats as such, will then be existent. To such passing away is this relation destined by God! With respect to the glorifying of the body here indicated, comp Matthew 22:30; 1 Corinthians 15:44; 1 Corinthians 15:51. Melanchthon aptly says: “Cibl et venter … sunt res periturae; … ideo sunt adiaphora;” and Bengel: “quae destruentur, per se liberum habent usum, Colossians 2:20 ff.” Comp Castalio, and among more modern expositors, Schulz, Krause, Billroth, Rückert, Schrader, Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Maier, Neander, Hofmann.[966] Pott, Flatt, and Heydenreich (and see still earlier writers in Wolf) approximate to this view, but take ΤᾺΒΡΏΜΑΤΑ … ΚΑΤΑΡΓ. as words of an opponent, the premisses of a conclusion as to the allowableness of fornication, which conclusion is impugned by Paul in the τὸδὲσῶμαΚ.Τ.Λ[967] which follows. But the apostle has not given the slightest hint of this passage being a dialogue; moreover, had it been so, he would have begun his reply in 1 Corinthians 6:13 with ἀλλά again (as in 1 Corinthians 6:12, according to this dialogistic view).

Other interpreters, following Chrysostom and Theophylact, make the design of ὁδὲΘεὸςκ.τ.λ[968] to be a warning against excess. Comp Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, al[970] But this, although in harmony with the ἈΛΛΆ in 1 Corinthians 6:12, would stand in no logical relation to the ὉΔῈΘΕῸςΚ.Τ.Λ[971] of 1 Corinthians 6:14, and thereby the inner connection of the whole address (see above) would be broken up.

καὶταύτηνκαὶταῦτα] Regarding the use of the double οὗτος for ἐκεῖνος … οὗτος, which is not common, see Bernhardy, p. 277. Comp Joshua 8:22; 1Ma 7:46; 1Ma 9:17.

τὸδὲσῶμα] Paul cannot name again here a single organ; the whole body is the organ of fleshly intercourse;[973] see 1 Corinthians 6:16.

τῇπορνείᾳ] for fornication (conceived of as a personal power), for its disposal and use.

τῷΚυρίῳ] inasmuch as the body is a member of Christ. See 1 Corinthians 6:15.

τῷσώματι] inasmuch, namely, as Christ is destined (has it as His function) to rule and use the body as His member. “Quanta dignatio!” Bengel. It is a mistake to make the phrase refer to the raising up and glorifying of the body, which it is the part of Christ to effect (Ambrosiaster, Anselm Thomas, Grotius); for this would destroy the unity of mutual reference in the two clauses (comp above, τὰβρώματακ.τ.λ[975]], and, besides, the resurrection is brought forward afterwards as something separate from the preceding, and that, too, as the work to God (parallel to the ὁδὲΘεὸςΚ.Τ.Λ[976] in 1 Corinthians 6:13).

[962] c. scilicet.

[966] Several of them, however, fall into the mistake of making the date of the καταργ. to be at death, which καὶταῦτα alone shows to be inadmissible.

[967] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

[968] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

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

[971] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

[973] Neither our text nor Luke 20:35 gives any support to the assumption that those partaking in the resurrection will be without sexual distinction. The doing away of the κοιλία refers simply to the cessation of the earthly process of nutrition; it does not affect the identity of the body, which Delitzsch (Psychol. p. 459), without warrant from Scripture, pronounces to be independent of the external continuance of distinction between the sexes. Such assertions lead to fantastic theories ὑπὲρὃγέγραπται.

[975] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

[976] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

1 Corinthians 6:14

1 Corinthians 6:14. This is parallel in contents and form to the sentence, ὁδὲΘεὸς … καταργήσει, in 1 Corinthians 6:13: Now God has not only raised up the Lord, but will raise up us also by His power. The body, consequently, has a destiny which stretches on into the future eternal αἰών; how wholly different therefore from the κοιλία, that organ of temporal nourishment, which will cease to be!

καὶτὸνΚύρ. ἤγειρε] necessary assurance of what follows. See Romans 8:11. Comp 1 Corinthians 15:20; Colossians 1:18; 2 Corinthians 4:11; 2 Corinthians 4:14.

καὶἡμᾶςἐξεγερεῖ[978]] The bodily change in the case of those still alive at the time of the Parousia (1 Corinthians 15:51; 2 Corinthians 5:2-4; 1 Thessalonians 4:15 ff.) did not need to be specially mentioned, since Paul was not here to enter into detail upon the doctrine of the resurrection. Comp on Romans 8:11. He therefore, in accordance with the τὸνΚύρ. ἤγειρε, designates here the consummation of all things only a potiori, namely, as a raising up, speaking at the same time in the person of Christians generally (ἡμᾶς), and leaving out of view in this general expression his own personal hope that he might survive to the Parousia.

The interchange of ἤγ. and ἐξεγ. (out of the grave, comp ἐξανάστασιςτῶννεκρῶν, Philippians 3:11) is accidental, without any special design—in opposition to Bengel and Osiander’s arbitrary opinion that the former word denoted the first-fruits, and the latter the “massa dormientium.”[981]

αὐτοῦ]—not αὑτοῦ, because uttered from the standpoint of the writer—applies to God, not to Jesus (Theodoret); and διὰτῆςδυνάμ. αὐτ. should be referred not to both the clauses in the sentence (Billroth), but, as its position demands, to ἐξεγερεῖ; for to the ground of faith which the latter has in καὶτὸνΚύριονἤγειρε, Paul now adds its undoubted possibility (Matthew 22:29), perhaps glancing purposely at the deniers of the resurrection, τῇἀξιοπιστίᾳτῆςτοῦποιοῦντοςἰσχύοςτοὺςἀντιλέγονταςἐπιστομίζων, Chrysostom.

[978] If ἐξεγείρει were the true reading (but see the critical remarks), the tense employed would in that case bring before us as present what was certain in the future. If ἐξήγειρε were correct, we should have to interpret this according to the idea of the resurrection of believers being implied in that of Christ, comp. Colossians 2:12.

[981] Against this view may be urged the consideration, in itself decisive, that in the whole of chap. 15. ἐγείρω is the term constantly used both of Christ’s resurrection and that of believers; whereas ἐξεγείρω occurs in all the N. T. only here and Romans 9:17 (in the latter passage, however, not of the rising of the dead).

1 Corinthians 6:15-17

1 Corinthians 6:15-17. That fornication is not an indifferent thing like the use of meats, but anti-Christian, Paul has already proved in 1 Corinthians 6:13-14, namely, from this, that the body belongs to Christ and is destined by God to be raised up again. How deserving of abhorrence fornication is on that account, he now brings home to the mind of his readers in a striking and concrete way. The immorality of fornication is certainly taken for granted in 1 Corinthians 6:15 f., yet not in such a manner as to make Paul guilty of a petitio principii (Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 538 f.), but on the ground of the proof of this immorality already given in 1 Corinthians 6:13-14 In 1 Corinthians 6:15 f. the apostle does not seek to prove it over again, but to teach the Corinthians to abhor the sin.

οὐκοἴδατεκ.τ.λ[982]] He here takes up once more, and exhibits with greater fulness, the thought in 1 Corinthians 6:13, ΤῸΣῶΜΑΤῷΚΥΡΊῼ, as the basis for the following warning: ἌΡΑςΟὖΝΚ.Τ.Λ[983]

μέληΧριστοῦ] Inasmuch, that is to say, as Christ, as the Head of the Christian world, stands to it in the closest and most inward fellowship of organic life (see especially Ephesians 4:16), and forms, as it were, one moral Person with it; the bodies of the individual believers, who in fact belong to the Lord, and He to them for this world and that which is to come (1 Corinthians 6:13 f.), may be conceived as Christ’s members, just as from the same point of view the whole church of Christ is His collective organ, His body (Romans 12:5; Ephesians 1:23; Colossians 1:18; Colossians 2:19; 1 Corinthians 12:13, al[984]).

ἄρας] Shall I then take away, take off, the members of Christ, and, etc. Billroth sees in ἄρας simply minuteness of description, indicative of deliberation, as in לקח. But this is to confound it with λαβών. The Vulgate renders rightly: tollens; Luke 6:29; Luke 11:22; John 11:48; Plato, Pol. ix. p. 578 E, Tim. p. 76 B; Sophocles, Trach. 796; 1Ma 8:18. What is depicted is daring misappropriation. The plural τὰμέλη denotes the category, for the matter “non quanta sit numero, sed qualis genere sit, spectatur,” Reisig, Conjec. in Aristoph. p. 58. Since the Christian’s body is among the members of Christ, the ΠΟΡΝΕΎΕΙΝ is a deed whereby a man takes away the members of Christ from Him whose property they are, and makes them a harlot’s members.

ΠΟΙΉΣΩ] future: Shall this case occur with me? shall I degrade myself to this? so far forget myself? Rückert and Osiander hold that it is the aorist subjunctive: should I, etc. (see Herm. a[985] Viger. p. 742). It is impossible to decide the point.

[982] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

[983] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

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

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

1 Corinthians 6:16

1 Corinthians 6:16. Ἤοὐκοἴδατε] “Or if this μὴγένοιτο (conveying, as it does, a negative to that question) still appears to you to admit of doubt, even after the statement of the nature of the case given in 1 Corinthians 6:15, then ye must be ignorant that,” etc. This ἤοὐκοἴδατε cannot correspond with the οὐκοἴδατε of 1 Corinthians 6:15 (Hofmann: “either the one or the other they must be ignorant of,” etc.), for ὅτιὁκολλώμ. κ.τ.λ[986] manifestly refers to the conclusion from the preceding expressed in ἌΡΑςΟὖΝ, and therefore is subordinated to the question answered shudderingly with ΜῊΓΈΝΟΙΤΟ. In 1 Corinthians 6:19, too, the ἬΟὐΚΟἼΔΑΤΕ refers to what has just before been said.

ΚΟΛΛΏΜ.] who joins himself to (דָּבַק), indicating the union in licentious intercourse. Comp Sir 19:2; Genesis 2:24; Ezra 4:20.

ΤῇΠΌΡΝῌ] the harlot with whom he deals (article).

ἛΝΣῶΜΆἘΣΤΙΝ] is a single body; previous to the κολλᾶσθαι he and the person concerned were two bodies, but he who is joined to the harlot—an united subject—is one body.

ἔσονταιγὰρΚ.Τ.Λ[988]] Genesis 2:24 (quoted from the LXX.) speaks, indeed, of wedded, not unwedded, intercourse; but Theodoret rightly points out the paritas rationis: ἓνγὰρκαὶτοῦτοκἀκεῖνοτῇφύσειτοῦπράγματος.

φησίν] Who it is that says it, is self-evident, namely, God; the utterances of the Scripture being His words, even when they may be spoken through another, as Genesis 2:24 was through Adam. Comp on Matthew 19:5. Similarly Galatians 3:16; Ephesians 4:8; Hebrews 8:5; 1 Corinthians 15:27. Ἡγραφή, which is what is usually supplied here, would need to be suggested by the context, as in Romans 15:10. Rückert arbitrarily prefers τὸπνεῦμα.[990]

οἱδύο] the two in question. The words are wanting in the Hebrew text, but are always quoted with it in the N. T. (Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:8; Ephesians 5:31) after the LXX., and also by the Rabbins (e.g. Beresh. Rabb. 18); an addition of later date in the interests of monogamy, which, although not expressly enjoined in the law, came by degrees to prevail, in accordance with its adumbration from the first in the history of the creation (Ewald, Alterth. p. 260 f.).

εἰςσάρκαμίαν] לְבָשָׂר אֶחַד. See on Matthew 19:5.

[986] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

[988] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

[990] To take it impersonally: “it is said,” as in 2 Corinthians 10:10, according to the well-known usage in the classics, would be without warrant from any other instance of Paul’s quotations from Scripture. Comp. Winer, Gr. p. 486 [E. T. 656]; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 117 [E. T. 134].

1 Corinthians 6:17

1 Corinthians 6:17. Weighty contrast to ὁκολλώμ. τῇπόρνῃἓνσῶμάἐστι, no longer dependent on ὅτι.

κολλᾶσθαιτῷΚυρίῳ, an expression of close attachment to Jehovah, which is very common in the O. T. (Jeremiah 13:11; Deuteronomy 10:20; Deuteronomy 11:22; 2 Kings 18:6; Sir 2:3, al[991]). It denotes here, inward union of life with Christ, and is selected to be set against the κολλ. τῇπόρνῃ in 1 Corinthians 6:16, inasmuch as in both cases an intima conjunctio takes place, in the one fleshly, in the other spiritual. We are not to assume that Paul was thinking here, as in Ephesians 5:23 ff. (comp 2 Corinthians 11:2; Romans 5:4), of the union with Christ as a marriage (Piscator, Olshausen, comp also Osiander); for in that mystical marriage-union Christ is the Bridegroom, filling the man’s place, and hence the contrast to κολλ. τῇπόρνῃ would be an unsuitable one. Olshausen’s additional conjecture, that when the apostle spoke of τῇπόρνῃ there floated before his mind a vision of the great whore who sitteth upon many waters (Revelation 17:1), is an empty fancy.

ἓνπνεῦμάἐστι] conceived of as the analogue to ἓνσῶμα. Comp 2 Corinthians 3:17. This is the same Unio mystica which Jesus Himself so often demands in the Gospel of John, and in which no ethical diversity exists between the πνεῦμα of the believing man and the πνεῦμα of Christ which fills it; Christ lives in the believer, Galatians 2:20, as the believer in Christ, Galatians 3:27, Colossians 3:17, this being brought about by Christ’s communicating Himself to the human spirit through the power of the Holy Spirit, Romans 8:9-11. Now, be it observed how, by fleshly union with a harlot, this high and holy unity is not simply put in hazard (Hofmann), but excluded altogether as a moral impossibility! Comp the idea of the impossibility of serving two masters (Romans 6:16), of fellowship with Christ and Belial, and the like. It is unnecessary to say that this has no application to union in marriage, seeing that it is ordained of God, “ob verbum, quo actus concubialis sanctificatur,” Calovius.

Comp Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 421.

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

1 Corinthians 6:18-20

1 Corinthians 6:18-20. Direct prohibition of fornication, strengthened by description of it as a sin against one’s own body, which is in fact the temple of the Holy Spirit, etc.

1 Corinthians 6:19

1 Corinthians 6:19 justifies the ἁμαρτάνει in respect of the specific description of it given by εἰςτὸἴδιονσῶμα. “Commits sin,” I say, against his own body; or, in case ye doubt that, and think perhaps that it does not matter so much about the body, know ye not that (1) your body (i.e. the body of each one among you, see Bernhardy, p. 60) is the temple (not: a temple, see on 1 Corinthians 3:16) of the Holy Spirit which is in you (Romans 8:11); and that (2) ye belong not to your own selves (see 1 Corinthians 6:20)? Fornication, therefore, so far as it affects your own body, is a desecration of what is holy, and a selfish rebellion against God your Lord.

οὗἔχετεἀπὸΘεοῦ] gives edge to the proof,[1005] and leads on to the second point (οὐκἐστὲἑαυτῶν) ΟὟ is under attraction from ἉΓ. ΠΝ. (Winer, p. 154 [E. T. 203]).

ΚΑῚΟὐΚΚ.Τ.Λ[1006]] still dependent upon ὅτι, which is to be supplied again after καί, not an independent statement (Hofmann, who takes the καί as meaning also), which would needlessly interrupt the flow of the animated address.

[1005] Chrysostom: καὶτὸνδεδωκότατέθεικεν, ὑψηλόντεὁμοῦποιῶντὸνἀκροατὴν, καὶφοβῶνκαὶτῷμεγέθειτῆςπαρακαταθήκηςκαὶτῇφιλοτιμίᾳτοῦπαρακαταθεμένου. Further, as to the idea of the body being the temple of the Holy Spirit, in opposition to the abuse of it in debauchery, comp. Herm. Past. Sim. v. 7.

[1006] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

1 Corinthians 6:20

1 Corinthians 6:20. For (proof of the οὐκἐστὲἑαυτ.) ye were bought, i.e. redeemed from the curse of the law, Galatians 3:13; from the wrath of God, Ephesians 2:3; from the bond of the guilt of sin, Romans 3:19-21; and acquired as God’s property (Ephesians 2:19; Ephesians 1:14), for a price, which was paid to God for your reconciliation with Him, namely, the blood of Christ, Matthew 26:28; Romans 3:24 f.; 2 Corinthians 5:18 ff.; Ephesians 1:7; 1 Peter 1:18 f.; Revelation 5:9. We have the same conception in Acts 20:28, although there, as also in 1 Corinthians 7:23, and Titus 2:14, the church is represented as the property of Christ; but see John 17:9.

τιμῆς] strengthens the ἠγοράσθ. as the opposite of acquiring without an equivalent. Comp 1 Corinthians 7:23. The common exposition (following the Vulgate): magno pretio, inserts without warrant what is not in the text (so, too, Pott, Flatt, Rückert, Osiander, Olshausen, Ewald).[1008] Comp Herod. vii. 119, and the passages in Wetstein; and see already Valla.

δοξάσατεδὴκ.τ.λ[1010]] Do but glorify, etc. This is the moral obligation arising out of the two things grasped by faith as certainties, 1 Corinthians 6:19. Regarding the δή of urgency with imperatives, see on Acts 13:2

ἘΝΤῷΣΏΜ. ὙΜ.] not instrumental, nor as in Philippians 1:20 (comp Romans 12:1), but so expressed, because the exhortation proceeds upon the footing of the whole tenor of 1 Corinthians 6:19, in which the body is described as a temple; in your body, namely, practically by chastity, the opposite of which would be an ἀτιμάζειντὸνΘεόν (Romans 2:23) in His own sanctuary!

[1008] How high a price it was (1 Peter 1:19) would suggest itself readily to the readers, but is not implied in the word itself.

[1010] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.