1 Corinthians 1

CHAPTER I

The Greeting, 1:1–3

The greeting follows the regular form that is used by Paul in all his letters. First, the writer’s name in the nominative; secondly, the persons to whom he writes in the dative; thirdly, the words of greeting again in the nominative. Thus in this letter: “Paul … and Sosthenes——to the church, etc.,——grace and peace.” Each of the three parts of the greeting, as is frequently done by Paul, receives an amplification. In Paul’s letters these amplifications invariably reflect the thought and the feeling that are in his heart as he sets out to write. The greeting thus foreshadows the contents and the character of the letter.

1 Corinthians 1:1

1 Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes, the brother.

In this instance the addition to the writer’s name is compact and weighty. Paul stresses his peculiar nearness to Jesus Christ as being one sent by him and at the same time points to the divine authority behind his words, an authority his readers are to acknowledge and to obey. All the instructions and the admonitions of this letter rest on this solid basis. They are all so important because they come from a called apostle of Jesus Christ. An “apostle” is one who is commissioned and sent and thus an individual who represents his sender. The title is itself highly significant.

While the term is at times used in a wider sense so as to include also the immediate assistants of the apostle like Barnabas, Timothy, and others, this is evidently not the case when the word is employed in the introduction to a weighty letter. Only the Twelve and Paul are “apostles” in the strict sense of the term.

The addition κλητός, “called,” a verbal that is used much like a past participle in the passive, brings to view the idea that is latent in the term “apostle,” namely that this ambassador of Christ became such by an immediate call from Christ himself. Paul is thinking of the scene on the road to Damascus. The genitive “of Jesus Christ” therefore also denotes more than mere possession (an apostle who belongs to Jesus Christ); it includes origin and agency (an apostle whom Jesus Christ called and sent). Yet there is no reason to assume that in this connection Paul contrasts himself with others who falsely claimed apostleship and were not called and sent by Jesus Christ. Paul is merely putting himself in the correct light for his Corinthian readers in order that they may properly receive what he writes to them.

The addition “through God’s will” enhances what has just been said. Paul’s call on the road to Damascus was mediated (διά) by a volition (θέλημα) formed on God’s part. In another connection Paul shows how far back this will of God goes, namely to his very birth. Paul’s call was not produced by a set of fortuitous circumstances. Not accidentally or in a temporal and a passing manner was Paul called. Nor did he grow into the call by a kind of evolution or spiritual development on his part. As far as Paul was concerned, he was developing in the very opposite direction, had, in fact, already reached the state of the most violent antagonism to Christ. What turned him about and changed his entire character and his life was “God’s will.”

This is, however, not an arbitrary or absolute volitional act that worked irresistibly upon Paul so that he was forced to become a believer and an apostle. The Scriptures know of no divine volitional acts of this kind. Paul himself says: “I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision,” Acts 26:19, and implies that he might have disobeyed and set his will against that of God. The volition of God through which he became an apostle emanated from the good and gracious will of God, the saving will of his love which employs the law and the gospel and by these gracious means lifts men from death to life, from enmity to devotion and service. In this way Paul was “called through God’s will” and received his high commission as “an apostle of Jesus Christ.” The full weight of this divine commission ever rested on Paul’s soul, and in writing to the Corinthians he bids them, too, to recognize this commission and all that it implies for them.

Paul associates another with himself in writing this letter: “and Sosthenes, the brother.” In First and in Second Thessalonians Paul combines two others with himself and in Galatians an undetermined number of persons. Sosthenes is thus not designated as being merely the amanuensis of Paul. The apostle dictated most or all of his letters. Who received his dictation in the present instance is a matter of conjecture. It may have been Sosthenes, it may have been some other efficient scribe. The association of Sosthenes with Paul in the composition and the sending of this letter means much more, namely that Sosthenes and Paul had talked over the contents of this letter and had fully agreed on all that is here transmitted. In other words, Sosthenes subscribes to all that Paul has to say.

Many suppose that this Sosthenes is the individual mentioned in Acts 18:17 and is thus a character who was well known to the Corinthians and one who was conversant with the situation in Corinth. It is also supposed that he was a half-Christian when he was compelled to act as a spokesman before the proconsul Gallio and for this reason bungled his job. Then the Jews beat him severely before Gallio’s tribunal (the lictors of Gallio performed the deed) and thereby aided in making him completely a Christian. The flaw in this story is the fact that the Sosthenes mentioned in Acts was so rabid that, when Gallio ordered the Jews to leave, he persisted in remaining until the lictors put speed into him with their rods.

Moreover, in this letter Paul does not write to the Corinthians “your brother,” does not intimate that any connection whatever exists between Sosthenes and the Corinthians. The Jewish Sosthenes mentioned in Acts is not the Christian “brother” of Paul’s letter. We know nothing about him beyond this mention of “the brother” in this letter. His name is not intended to add authority to Paul’s letter. The authority back of it is vested in the apostle. In associating himself with this brother Paul conveys the idea that the voice of apostolic authority here unites with the voice of brotherly solicitude and that each is represented in a person who is known to the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 1:2

2 The recipients of the letter are, first of all, designated collectively as a body and then described as to their Christian character and their associates. To the church of God which is at Corinth, having been sanctified in Christ Jesus, called as saints, together with all that call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, theirs and ours.

The term ἐκκλησία, “church,” designates the local congregation in Corinth. The word signifies “assembly,” it is derived from ἐκ and καλεῖν and designates an assembly that gathers in answer to a call issued for that purpose. This may, of course, mean any kind of gathering, civic, social, etc. When the Christian ecclesia is to be indicated, a modifier is always added to differentiate it and to mark its Christian character. Here it is the church “of God,” the assembly which belongs to God in a peculiar way. It is best to take the genitive in the broadest sense since God is the originator, lord, living power, protector, comforter, and ruler of the church.

Everything about this ecclesia is according. Thus we see how Paul regards the Corinthians when he now writes to them; and he evidently desires, we may say even calls upon them, to regard themselves in the same way when this letter is read to them.

The note thus struck is amplified by the addition: “having been sanctified in Christ Jesus.” Now, however, Paul uses the plural whereas with the term ecclesia he employed the singular. So often Paul loves to dwell on the two or more sides of a concept or an idea. The perfect participle ἡγιασμένοι tells of a past act and its present and continuing result. The Corinthians, once made holy by the grace of God in Christ Jesus, by faith continue in this holiness. This term, οἱἡγιασμένοι, is a standard designation for true Christians in the New Testament; it is like οἱπιστεύοντες, “they that believe,” οἱκλητοί, “they that are called,” etc. The idea expressed in ἁγιάζειν is separation from everything profane and worldly and devotion to God in Christ Jesus.

Theologically this is called “sanctification in the wider sense,” for it includes conversion, faith, justification, and the life in good works—all that has made and still makes us the Christians that we are. This is to be distinguished from “sanctification in the narrow sense,” namely the life in good works, which constitutes the fruit of faith and justification.

The phrase “in Christ Jesus” is to be understood as meaning “in union and communion with Christ Jesus” or “in connection with him.” Our entire Christian life became such and is such only in vital connection with Christ Jesus. The moment this little preposition ἐν is cancelled we cease to be ἡγιασμένοι in any sense. A fruitful study could be made of this pregnant phrase which recurs again and again in Paul’s letters in all manner of connections; the studies that have been made are not satisfactory.

Paul calls the Corinthians “they that are sanctified” in spite of the fact that he has much fault to find with them. Those who overstrain the term to mean “total sanctification,” or, if not that, a pietistic, puritanic, or other type of self-chosen “holiness,” are here corrected by Paul. He likewise corrects those who go to the other extreme and think that holiness remains where grave faults are allowed to continue and become permanent in a congregation. Observe how Paul rings the changes on the Savior’s name. “Christ Jesus,” which names his person and his work in one breath, is the one source of our Christian being.

Paul now adds appositionally: “called as saints.” He thus makes a double combination. Like Paul, the Corinthians are also “called”—he in his office “called as an apostle”; they in their church membership “called as saints.” The other connection is by way of ἅγιοι, “saints,” which takes up and emphasizes ἡγιασμένοι, “they that are sanctified.” That is what makes them saints or “holy persons.” In this they have a like experience with Paul. He was made what he is by God’s call; they likewise.

In the epistles κλητός and κλητοί always signify called effectively, the call being both extended and accepted. In the Gospels the term is used as denoting only the call extended so that “the called” are merely the invitati, Matt. 22:14. The verbal with its passive idea points to God as the agent who effectively called the Corinthians by both extending the call and enabling them to accept it by his grace. It is not strange that Paul uses ἡγιασμένοι combined with ἅγιοι in addressing this letter to the Corinthians, for the entire burden of it is instruction and admonition to be more fully just what these two terms convey.

Thus far Paul has fixed attention only on Corinth, “the church which is at Corinth,” the assembly of saints which gathers in that city. It is characteristic of the apostle that he does not stop with this idea. Although all he has to say applies to this city and to its Christian congregation, Paul sees these people and wants them to see and to feel themselves a part of a vaster whole. So he adds: “together with all that call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, theirs and ours.” While the Corinthians are grouped as one congregation in Corinth they are joined with (σύν, associative) many others, namely all those in every place who call upon the Lord’s name.

The others thus named are, of course, not another and more extensive group to whom this letter is also addressed. Paul is not writing a world encyclical. They are fellow Christians of the Corinthians; and whenever the Corinthians think of themselves they are to remember the entire spiritual body of which they are a part. Here there is the true antidote for individualism and sectionalism. We are not to be Christians just by ourselves but members together with all the saints of God.

When Paul describes the Corinthians he states what God has made of them, “they that are sanctified, that are called saints,” the passive idea is found in both expressions. When Paul describes the fellow Christians of the Corinthians he does the reverse: he states what these Christians themselves do, namely “call on the name of the Lord.” The one description we may call objective, the other subjective. To call on the Lord’s name is at the same time the simplest and the most sufficient way of designating in others than ourselves what not only makes but also shows them to be Christians. For calling on the Lord’s name is a confessional act, one that men generally are able to perceive. We know that this act can be truly performed only “in connection with the Holy Ghost,” 1 Cor. 12:3; and it certainly “saves,” for it goes together with a believing heart, Rom. 10:9, 10.

But why did Paul vary the designations for the Corinthians and for those other Christians? When we are bidden to look at ourselves we can be asked to look into our own hearts (holiness); but when we are bidden to look at others we cannot and really dare not judge their hearts, we must attend to the confession which they make in calling on the Lord. An unacceptable distinction is made at this point when this Anrufung Christi or calling on the Lord is regarded as only a relative Anbetung or a relative worship of Christ, an adoration “beneath” that accorded God. This is done in support of subordinationism, the doctrine that Christ is God in a secondary or lower sense. Exegetically there is no ground here or anywhere else in the Scriptures for such a lowering of Christ, the true Son of God. The very contrary is true. To call on the Lord Jesus Christ means the same as to call on God, i.e., to worship him as God.

Paul loves the full, sonorous designation “our Lord Jesus Christ.” In the possessive “our” he, of course, includes himself. “Jesus Christ” combines the incarnate person and his mediatorial work. “Our Lord” acknowledges this person as our heavenly Savior, Master, and King, to whom we belong with body and with soul. “To call on him” means to praise, bless, thank, worship him, and to ask of him all that we need for body and for soul.

Paul writes: to call on “the name.” The “name” always designates the person so that there is no difference whether we call on the person or on his name. Yet the two are not identical, and we may note the peculiar manner in which the Scriptures speak so pointedly of the Name. For instance, we are to be baptized “in the name” of the Father, etc. This “name” signifies the revelation of the person. It is more than our names, which are usually only labels although even we are known by our names, those given to us as babes and those acquired by our character, work, etc. We know God, Christ, etc., by their name or revelation, for in their cases the name brings them into connection with us so that we truly know, trust, love and revere them.

There is much discussion regarding the final genitive αὑτῶνκαὶ (or τεκαὶ) ἡμῶν, “theirs and ours.” Suffice it to say that “theirs” refers to “they that call on the name,” etc., and “ours” refers to the two writers of the letter. The Corinthians are to think of themselves as being joined together with all those who confess the Lord “in every place” over the entire world wherever they may be, and all these places may be divided into two, “theirs and ours.” The effect of the last genitive is that Paul and Sosthenes are placed among those that call on the Lord’s name, the “place” or residence of these two being Ephesus where the letter is being written.

1 Corinthians 1:3

3 The greeting itself is like that found in other letters of Paul’s, such as Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians: Grace to you and peace from God, our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. The grammarians supply the optative of wish εἴη or some other verb form, but we prefer to regard the nominatives as being exclamatory and thus needing no verb form even in thought.

In these greetings the term χάρις or grace takes the place of the secular χαίρειν “that ye rejoice,” and denotes the undeserved favor Dei as it is in God’s heart together with all the gifts of that favor, especially such as pertain to the persons involved. Thus “grace to you” means: May God and the Lord give you an abundance of his undeserved gifts!

“And εἰρήνη” is the Hebrew shalom, the German Heil, and denotes the condition that results when God is our friend, and all is well with us. The objective condition of “peace” is always the fundamental thing which, of course, also has accompanying it the subjective feeling of peace, namely rest, satisfaction, and happiness in the heart. The condition is constant and essential, the feeling may or may not always be present. The condition is to be our fixed possession, and this fact will assure us that, when the feeling fluctuates and at times sinks very low, it will revive to greater strength. The order of these two, grace and peace, remains constant, grace is always first, peace always second. This is due to the fact that grace is the source of peace. Without grace there is and can be no peace; but when grace is ours, peace must of necessity follow.

In order to characterize the exalted value of these gifts Paul adds the modifiers: “from God, our Father,” etc. The preposition ἀπό conveys the idea that the blessings indicated are to flow down to us from above. The thought of origin is also included. By using the preposition ἀπό, “from,” only once the two objects governed by it, “God, our Father,” and “the Lord Jesus Christ,” are regarded as a unit and are thus placed on a level of equality. This is so self-evident that no scholar in the Greek will deny it. Yet subordinationism and those who in other ways modify or cancel the Godhead of Christ lower the position of Christ that is here expressed by Paul’s phrase. This is done by calling attention to the two names “our Father” and “Lord” and by finding a difference of being in these names so that Christ’s deity is lowered or lost.

To be sure, not only the two persons here mentioned but all three persons of the Godhead have different names. The entire Scripture tells us that. How this fact involves a subordination of one person to the other is not apparent. The fact that one person is called our Father and the other our Lord Jesus Christ does not lower the second. It merely shows that in the Holy Trinity all three persons were not fathers, all three were not incarnate, etc., but that each bears a distinct relation to us and our salvation which is unaffected by the identity of their essence.

The names which Paul uses here and elsewhere apply to the revelation the persons have vouchsafed to us in connection with the divine work of salvation. The first person is “our Father” because we are his children in Christ Jesus; and the second person is “the Lord” or “our Lord” because he has redeemed, purchased, and won us so that we are his own and live under him in his kingdom and serve him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness (Luther). As long as this one preposition coordinates our Father and our Lord and makes them one fountain of saving grace and peace, no ingenuity of men will be able to sever them and introduce a subordination.

The Introduction, 1:4–9

1 Corinthians 1:4

4 Paul loves to begin his letters to congregations with a statement of his gratitude for their spiritual well-being. This is an entirely natural way of beginning a letter and resembles many of our letters to friends when we hear that they are doing well. The introduction to the present letter is certainly marked with praise. But the passives show that this is praise for what God has wrought and not for anything the Corinthians have done. This fact is quite significant for an understanding of the body of the letter, which has much to criticize in regard to the Corinthians.

Yet Paul is not writing in an ironical manner when he uses these passive verbs. Such irony would be foolish and ethically wrong. Nor is Paul thinking of only a part of the congregation when he writes this praise, passive though the verbs be (those “of Paul” or those “of Christ” or the two combined), for the letter is addressed to the church as a whole. What Paul writes by way of praise is true of the Corinthians in general, and while he thus points to that which is delightful among them, it is understood from the very beginning that he will have fault to find in other respects.

So the apostle begins: I thank my God always concerning you on the basis of the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus, etc.

A little personal touch is added by inserting “my” before “God,” although some MSS. omit this pronoun. Paul is speaking about his prayer life when he writes: “I thank my God.” He ever bore his congregations on his heart and constantly prayed for them. He does not merely ask God to bestow grace and gifts upon them to supply their spiritual needs, he always remembers with a grateful heart the many gifts God has already granted to his people. Even when there is much to ask for them, these needs do not dim Paul’s eyes to the shining gifts God has already granted. This thankfulness on Paul’s part is an example for us all. God loves to add new blessings when past blessings are received and cherished with true gratitude.

Paul’s prayers rest on (ἐπί with the dative) the grace which God has vouchsafed to the Corinthians in connection with (ἐν as in v. 2) Christ Jesus. “Grace” is itself the highest and most comprehensive of God’s undeserved gifts and here embraces all that God has so freely bestowed on the Corinthians. Yet Paul marks this gift expressly as a gift by adding the aorist participle δοθείση, “which was given.” The tense of the participle emphasizes the past fact of God’s giving and at the same time summarizes all God’s giving. The great Giver is “God,” and the sphere of his giving is the blessed circle drawn by the phrase “in Christ Jesus.” All the divine gifts of grace which enrich the Corinthians and all the grace itself from which they flow are connected from beginning to end with “Christ Jesus,” i.e., with his person and his work.

1 Corinthians 1:5

5 While “grace,” as here used, is all-comprehensive and includes all of God’s gifts to the Corinthians, Paul is thinking of this grace as being something specific and concrete, hence he now specifies: that in everything ye are enriched in him, in all utterance and all knowledge. The passive of the preceding participle “was given” is continued in the case of the verb “were enriched.” A second time Paul thus draws attention to what God has done for the Corinthians: by the gift of his grace he “made them rich.” The verb πλουτίζεσθαι instead of the more frequent περισσεύειν, “to abound,” is more select. It suggests that formerly the Corinthians were poor spiritually, yea utterly destitute, but that this has now been wondrously changed—they have come into great spiritual wealth. It is certainly true that the Corinthians possess, without any merit or worthiness on their part, tremendous spiritual riches.

The idea of greatness is enhanced by the phrase “in everything.” God had withheld nothing from them. And all that he had given them was, of course, ἐναὑτῷ, in connection with Christ. For the third time we meet this significant phrase in these first lines. While the aorist is historical and again sums up the entire enrichment in one punctiliar idea, Paul does not intend to refer only to his own past work in founding the congregation. Nor can he by the use of this aorist mean that the Corinthians were so enriched at one time, but that they had now lost a good part of this enrichment through faults of their own, the faults Paul is about to discuss. The aorist merely sums up all their wealth from the beginning to the present time.

The question of faults and losses is not touched as yet. It is enough that God has been so good to the Corinthians.

They have been made rich by God “in everything.” What this means is now stated: “in all utterance and in all knowledge.” The word λόγος means more than “utterance” or speaking; it includes the thought as well as its expression by means of the sounds of language. The comprehensive phrase “in all utterance” cannot be restricted to some specific type of utterance such as the speaking in tongues, which Paul intends to discuss in this letter. The phrase must here refer to any and every form of expressing the saving truth of Christ, namely practical and theoretical, devotional and apologetic, pastoral instruction and admonition and public preaching and teaching. This, of course, includes the knowledge that is necessary for such utterance whenever teaching is engaged in. However, the addition “in all knowledge” does not intend to express this self-evident plea, for then “knowledge” should be mentioned first and “utterance” second. The “knowledge” here added to “utterance” is the result of the latter.

Where all the forms of teaching and of admonition abound, there, as a natural result, all the forms of knowledge will spread in the congregation and thus likewise abound. Such, then, was the wealth with which the Corinthians were enriched when Paul wrote this letter. Paul and Apollos and other notable men had taught the Corinthians, and this work had been done among them with very rich results.

1 Corinthians 1:6

6 The next clause indicates the deeper effect produced in the hearts of the Corinthians: even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you. “In you” means in your hearts by an increase of faith. Instead of writing “the gospel,” Paul says “the testimony of Christ” was confirmed in you. This is not the testimony which others brought to the Corinthians “concerning Christ” as R. 500 supposes (objective genitive), but the testimony which Christ himself made while he was here on earth (subject genitive) as we see from 1 Tim. 6:13: Jesus τοῦμαρτυρήσαντοςἐπὶΠοντίουΠιλάτου, and from many other references to Christ’s testimony. The verb is again passive: “was confirmed,” made solid and strong in your hearts, the passive pointing to God as the agent and thus strengthening the effect of the previous passives. To confirm Christ’s testimony in you means to plant it solidly in your hearts by faith. Giving is the broadest of the three verbs; making rich is more specific; confirming narrows the idea down still more and refers it to the very hearts of the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 1:7

7 The next clause: so that you come behind in no gift, with its present infinitive, points out the result of all of this past activity of God’s as it is found in the present condition of the Corinthians. As Paul sees them now, they “come behind” in no gift. We may say that they come behind no other of the various churches. God has done no less for them and in them than he has accomplished in others. Or, leaving out the comparison with other congregations, the Corinthians fall short, as far as God’s activity in their case is concerned, in no respect. Since Paul is here speaking in general terms, “in no gift” cannot refer to the special charismatic gifts of the early church but must point to the general gracious gifts of God with which true believers are always duly endowed, the spiritual blessings of Christianity in general.

We may ask how Paul determines when a congregation does not fall behind or come short. The added participial clause contains the answer: waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ. A congregation does not come behind or fall short when it is waiting for the Lord’s revelation. The present participle does not include patient waiting, quiet holding out, but refers rather to an expecting something which one does not as yet have but to which one is looking forward. In the case of the Corinthians the object of their waiting is “the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ,” which, of course, refers to the last great day. This is, indeed, a “revelation” because the Lord will then reveal himself fully by visibly appearing to the universe in all his glory. Whoever is equipped to look forward aright to that glorious revelation does not “come behind in any gracious gift.”

1 Corinthians 1:8

8 The two present tenses “ye do not come behind” and “waiting for” point to the present state of the Corinthians. Yet “the revelation” of Christ lies in the future. In order to bridge this interval Paul adds the relative clause concerning Christ and then in v. 9 the new sentence concerning God. Concerning Christ, whose glorious revelation the Corinthians await at the last day, Paul writes: who shall confirm you until the end as not to be accused in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. Observe these solemn repetitions of the sacred name “our Lord Jesus Christ.” They echo through this introduction.

The future tense “shall confirm you” has the force of a divine promise. But as throughout this introductory paragraph Paul thanks God for what God has done for the Corinthians, so in this relative clause it is Christ and his work that are stressed. He will confirm the Corinthians. The phrase “until the end,” as its position indicates, modifies the verb “shall confirm” you. And “end” is here not the end of life but the final end marked by the day of the Lord.

The verbal ἀνεγκλήτους, “as not to be accused,” is forensic so that no indictment can be lodged before a judge. This shows the character of “the day” of the Lord. In that day he shall be revealed as the Judge of the whole world. And now his “confirming” becomes clear. He confirms us by keeping us true in the faith so that we have daily forgiveness of sins and are kept from deadly errors and sins by which faith would be destroyed and we should fall into the condemnation of the devil.

1 Corinthians 1:9

9 Paul doubles this assurance and promise: Faithful is God, through whom ye were called into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ, our Lord.

The adjective πιστός is placed emphatically forward and means trustworthy, reliable. The preceding context shows in what respect this is true, namely in respect to all that he does for our final salvation. If we were left to depend on ourselves we should surely be lost; but we can trust God completely. The work he has begun in us he will most certainly also complete. For this reason Paul reaches back with the relative clause: “through whom ye were called,” to the very beginning of God’s work upon the Corinthians. This last verb, too, is in the passive.

Yet Paul writes διά, “through” whom, and not ὑπό, “by” whom. The passive verb itself contains the idea that God is the agent in our effective call, the causa principalis of that call (ὑπό). When Paul writes διά he adds the idea that God is also the supreme medium through whom the call is extended to us. It is a matter of how one desires to present God when speaking about the call. This God is “faithful” and worthy of our trust, not only in regard to what he will from now on do for our salvation, but also because his faithfulness reaches back to the very first moment of our saving contact with him. God, who began the blessed work in the Corinthians, cannot at any time thereafter become indifferent or show neglect.

The phrase “into the fellowship,” etc., embraces the entire communion with Christ, including the consummation at the last day. In this life our communion with Christ is mediated on his part by Word and sacrament, in and through which he comes to us, in and by which he makes his abode with us and dwells in us. There is no fellowship of Christ with us apart from his Word and sacrament. On our part this communion with Christ is mediated by faith. Love, devotion, worship, and all works by which we serve him are never independent but spring forth as the fruits of faith. Take away faith, and the communion ceases forth-with. It is as pure and intense as our faith is pure and intense. Everything else indicates only the character and the degree of our faith.

When he closes the introductory paragraph Paul again uses the sacred name, but this time he adds the designation “his Son.” The claim that Paul never calls Jesus the Son of God is here refuted by the clearest language. Likewise the abstract claim that Jesus is not truly God. “His Son” appears without a modifying adjective or phrase for the sufficient reason that Jesus is God’s Son in no modified sense. Instead of placing him on a lower level than that occupied by the Father (subordinationism) or making him a being that was created somewhere in eternity by the Father (Arianism) or reducing him to a mere human being who received divine glory from the Father (rationalism, etc.), Paul’s designation places our Lord on an equality with the Father. The nature of “his Son” cannot differ from that of the Father. Every other instance in which Jesus is called God’s Son in the Scriptures, in which his oneness with the Father is asserted together with his eternal pre-existence, helps to make plain what “his Son” signifies in the present connection. Paul, of course, adds “his Son” at the end of this paragraph in order to establish all that he writes about Jesus as our Lord. For Jesus cannot be our Lord and together with the Father our one fountain of grace unless he is, indeed, God’s own Son, equal with the Father and one with him in essence.

A silent significance illuminates the entire paragraph. Paul does not praise the Corinthians as such for their faith or for their love and their works. He only thanks God for God’s grace, gift, confirmation, etc. The passive verbs have a silent purpose. For Paul concludes with God’s and God’s Son’s confirmation in view of the final judgment. The Corinthians are to feel that they still need confirmation in various respects.

When Paul visits the congregations he has founded he does this in order to confirm them. He is God’s humble instrument in this vital and necessary work. This letter intends to serve the same blessed purpose. The Corinthians are to be quite sure as to how they shall appear at the last great day. On God they can rely, but how about themselves? This is, indeed, a masterly introduction to the letter that now follows.

———

The First Part of the Letter

The Preachers of the Corinthians, 1:10–4:21

I. The Party Contentions, 1:10–17.

II. The Foolishness of Preaching the Cross of Christ, 1:18–31.

III. The Preachers of the Wisdom of the Cross, chapter 2.

IV. The Preachers as God’s Co-workers, 3:1–9.

V. God’s Building, 3:10–23.

VI. God’s Tried and Faithful Stewards, chapter 4.

I. The Party Contentions, 1:10–17

1 Corinthians 1:10

10 In his other letters Paul first offers doctrine and secondly admonition. In this letter he at once writes: “I admonish you.” The “confirmation” promised to the Corinthians in v. 8 is thus to be realized at once. While this letter is thus to be built up of admonition, this admonition is often combined with doctrinal statements and explanations of the greatest value. Paul begins: Now I admonish you, brethren, through the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no factions among you, but that you be perfected in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Paul uses the common transitional δέ, “now,” and also the loving address “brethren” with its friendly appeal to the heart. There were many troubles and faults among the Corinthians, and yet these do not sever the fraternal tie that binds them to Paul. While this is true and should not be minimized, a deduction such as the following would be contrary to Paul’s intention: that congregations may settle down permanently into evil conditions like those which existed in Corinth without impairing their fraternal relations with Paul and with those who are true as he was. For this entire letter is directed at one thing only, namely to remove the faults and the evils that had begun to show themselves in Corinth. Only because Paul intends to and most sincerely hopes to accomplish this purpose does he write to these “brethren.” His tone is gentle and matches the fraternal address. The English versions which translate “I beseech” may mislead, for παρακαλῶ does not mean “I beg” but rather “I call upon you,” “I summon,” “I admonish you.” This word is tactful and brotherly, and yet Paul is not forgetting that he writes as an apostle of Jesus Christ, v. 1. The authority he would exercise is the same whether it speaks softly or finds itself compelled to speak sternly.

Paul mediates (διά) his summons “through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Once more we hear the full, solemn designation of the Savior, which always brings to mind all of his saving power and grace. And now again (v. 2) the ὄνομα or “name” is joined with this designation, which directs our attention to the revelation by which Christ makes himself known to us, and by which we know him. In all that Paul intends to write in his admonition he will use Christ’s name or revelation to enlighten and to move. There is no saving or no cleansing power apart from this “name.” After verbs of urging or commanding the subfinal ἵνα, “that,” may be used, R. 1046, which introduces the substance of the admonition or the command.

Here it is: “that you all speak the same thing.” The subject as well as the object of the verb are emphatic by their position. In a broad way Paul states in this brief summary the theme of the entire first part of his letter: That All May Speak The Same Thing. They are all to be a unit in what they think and say as Christians, for λέγω always involves the thought that is put into words and never indicates merely the sounds of the lips or the form of expression.

A negative formulation is at once added, and this by coordination, καί: “and that there be no factions among you,” divisions or parties that disrupt the unity that ought to be. When Paul writes “you all” he does not imply that some of the Corinthians are not speaking as they ought. So he also writes: “that there be,” and not: “that there may no longer be” (μηκέτιἧ, or μὴγένηται), leaving unsaid whether the “factions” are already actual or only impending. We catch a glimpse of Paul’s heart. He is not swift to put the worst construction upon questionable conditions, to surmise evil, or to exaggerate. In this respect we shall always find him to be the same.

Paul’s carefulness appears also in the third and positive statement which he attaches with the slightly adversative δέ: “but that you be perfected,” etc. Instead of the present subjunctive καταρτίζησθε, which would imply an actual torn condition that is to be remedied, he writes ἦτεκαταρτισμένοι and uses the perfect participle as a predicate after ἦτε: “that you may be (or may go on being) such as have been perfectly fitted out” (from ἄρτιος). Paul thus omits the implication that the Corinthians are actually divided at this time.

Such an implication is sometimes read into Paul’s words, and a correspondingly dark picture is painted of the conditions existing in Corinth; yet such a dismal picture is not in accord with the facts. The Corinthians are to be Christians who have been perfected, adjusted, and well furnished “in the same mind and in the same judgment.” The two phrases elucidate Paul’s statement in which he calls on the Corinthians to speak the same thing. When they are properly equipped they will not differ among themselves in regard to spiritual understanding or in regard to spiritual judgment. Back of our speaking is the mind or the understanding by which we grasp a subject; and, having grasped it, we form our judgment and our conclusions; and these we put into speech.

Both νοῦς, “mind,” and γνώμη, “judgment,” are neutral terms and may deal with secular or spiritual matters; here, of course, the latter are meant. Paul desires that the same mind and the same judgment be found in all of the Corinthians and not divergent or contradictory conclusions. Yet mere harmony and agreement is not Paul’s ideal but a unity of right understanding and of judgment. This is the thought that underlies his words. The apostle is not thinking in a special way about doctrinal unity as he does in Eph. 4:3, etc., although this, too, is included. He has in mind the various questions that have arisen in Corinth and the contradictory answers the Corinthians have given to these questions.

The situations that had developed were not properly understood by some, and hence their judgments, too, had been warped. As a result some spoke in favor of a thing, others against it; or there was even a variety of opinions.

Similar clashes occur in our congregations today. Paul would not have us believe that differences of this kind are immaterial as long as no doctrine is directly involved. If they are allowed to continue, the result must eventually be σχίσματα, factions and rents in the congregation, which are not only disturbing but also destructive in their effect.

1 Corinthians 1:11

11 With all plainness of speech Paul now states to what he refers and addresses his readers even more tenderly than he did before: For it has been signified to me concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people that there are contentions among you.

The aorist ἐδηλώθη merely states the fact that Paul has obtained this information, yet, placed forward as it is, this verb has the emphasis: due information has reached Paul. “By Chloe’s people,” literally, “by those that belong to Chloe,” remains indefinite for us since we know nothing about this lady nor about the people who belong to her, whether these were relatives of hers or possibly slaves. Was she one of the well-known members of the congregation at Corinth whose people had occasion to visit Paul at Ephesus? Or did she herself reside in Ephesus, and had some of her people been at Corinth? The Corinthians need no further explanation.

Paul names the source of his information. He is not entertaining idle rumors which do so much damage in the church before their evil buzzing can be finally quieted. Nor is Paul secretive. The Corinthians need not ask: “Who told him?” Paul is quite open. The Corinthians themselves had sent a letter to Paul, which he had just received, in which they asked him about a number of things that troubled them, but they had said nothing in their letter about the ἔριδες or “contentions” that Chloe’s people reported to him. We do not know why the Corinthians said nothing on this subject. We note only that Paul does not reprove them for this omission. Perhaps they did not realize the danger that threatened them through these bickerings.

We may ask whether it was ethically proper for those of Chloe to tell Paul what they knew about the conditions existing in Corinth. The question answers itself, for Paul accepted and acted on the information he thus received. Observe, too, that τῶν is plural. A number of witnesses attested the facts to the apostle. This is not a case of “talking behind people’s backs.” Aus Liebe zur Besserung etwas an gehoerigem Ort anzeigen ist keine Suende wider das achte Gebot, nur huete man sich, dass ueber die Wahrheit nichts hinzugesetzt werde. Hedinger. Another caution is in place: “Beware lest ill-will or secret malice prompt you to report.” Paul’s information is to the effect that ἔριδες or “contentions,” Zaenkereien, quarrelings, prevail among the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 1:12

12 Paul at once specifies: Now this I mean, that each one of you says, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

Only as a matter of history would there be any value in discussing the many varying opinions that have been held in regard to these Corinthian parties. Suffice it to say that Paul enumerates four different parties. Yet the case is overstated when these parties are called σχίσματα, splits or divisions. That stage had not yet been reached. The term ἔριδες implies only that the members who used these various slogans wrangled with each other. Of course, if this wrangling were to continue, actual schisms and divisions would eventually result. The genitive used with εἰμί denotes attachment: “I belong to Paul,” etc. Paul and Apollos had labored in Corinth, Peter had not, and, of course, Christ had not.

The first three slogans implied that those who used them boasted of the excellency, the special gifts, and the grand results attained on the part of the man whose name they vauntingly proclaimed. Some had been converted by Paul, others by Apollos who followed Paul, and still others by Peter. The latter members had come to Corinth after Paul had left and in all probability were Jewish Christians from Palestine who extoled Peter as the foremost of the Twelve. Apollos, learned and eloquent and at the same time very successful, could easily have gained a contentious personal following after he left this field of his labors. Since he was the founder of the congregation Paul certainly stood high in the estimation of the original members. The wrong and the dangerous feature attendant upon the estimation in which these men were held was not the fact that these great teachers had their devoted personal admirers, who praised their excellencies and their achievements in the church, but the fact that these friends should exalt these teachers to an unwarranted degree, pit the one against the other, and misuse their good names for the purpose of forming parties and wrong distinctions in the congregation.

Some of the members in Corinth sensed the wrong nature of this proceeding and thus came to make their shibboleth: “I of Christ.” This was in a manner correct. As Paul continues writing, we observe that he discusses only three of these contentions, for the most part only two, the one centering about himself and the one centering about Apollos. The party of Peter was in all likelihood small. Paul says no more regarding the Christ party. Only in 3:21 we read: “Let no one glory in men”; then in v. 23: “You are Christ’s”; compare 1:31: “He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.” All this indicates that Paul in a way sided with the Christ party. He can, however, not say this outright.

It will not do to place Christ into competition with man as the head of a party over against other parties. The fault of the Christ party is the fact that it allows itself to become only a party and thus is also drawn into the party wranglings.

1 Corinthians 1:13

13 In a highly effective manner Paul at once explodes the folly of this entire party matter. He reduces the contentions of the Corinthians to absurdities. That is the true “understanding” and “judgment” concerning them. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

We regard the first sentence as a question and not as an exclamation although the Greek has no interrogative particle. Such a particle is not always needed. To make the first sentence exclamatory and the other two interrogative would be too odd. “Has Christ been divided?” does not, of course, intend to ask whether he has been cut up into parts so that we have him in so many separate parts (this is the force of the perfect tense). This dividing refers to different kinds of Christ: a Paul Christ, an Apollos Christ, a Peter Christ, and beside these just a plain, unmarked Christ. The very idea is absurd to Christians. Christ is one, absolutely and always one. Why, then, these silly wranglings?

There is, however, another possibility. When some say: “I belong to Paul,” while others say: “I belong to Christ,” the former speak against the latter as though Paul, too, were a kind of Christ or in some way an equivalent of Christ. Hence the question: “You certainly do not intend to say, what your words strangely seem to imply, that Paul was crucified for you?” The particle μή, like the Latin num, implies a negative answer. Crucifixion is mentioned as the outstanding redemptive act of Christ. The very idea that Paul might thus be crucified for the Corinthians is absurd. This question is put only with regard to Paul although it could with equal right have been put with regard to Apollos and with regard to Peter.

Paul is not flattered by these Corinthians who claim this attachment to him. The reverse is true. So Paul mentions only his own party and their absurd action and lets the readers supply the questions regarding the other two preachers.

“Paul,” “Apollos,” “Peter,” and “Christ” are names, and the Corinthians used them as labels in their party contentions. Thinking of that, Paul asks: “Or, certainly, you were not baptized ‘in Paul’s name’ or with a Paul baptism?” Only One was crucified for our redemption, and so there are also not different baptisms, a Pauline, an Apollos, and a Petrine baptism, but only one, the Christ baptism. Any other notion is absurd. And yet this very absurdity is contained in the shibboleths of the Corinthians. Here Paul again castigates only his own party and allows his readers to supply what is necessary for the rest. When he asks these questions Paul finds no fault with the fourth party, the one that names itself after Christ. This does not, of course, mean that they were wholly faultless, for in a way, when they lower Christ to the level of a party head and thus place him in competition with other party heads, this party, too, is in the wrong.

Strange to say, men still invent Christs to suit their own religious whims. Instead of the Christ that was, and is, and ever shall be, the same yesterday, and today, and forever, they create a changeable and a variously colored Christ. All of them are distortions of the genuine and only Christ, some of them have a Christ in only the Oriental garments. He is to them no longer virgin-born, nor risen from the dead, nor equal in essence with the Father, etc.

The phrase “in the name of Paul” intends to allude to the great commission: baptizing “in the name” of the Father, etc. In regard to the term “name” see v. 2 and 10. To baptize in the name, etc., does not mean to baptize by the authority of, etc. The preposition εἰς is static and has the idea of sphere: “in,” not that of direction: “into” (as even the R. V. still translates). In the Koine, the Greek of this period, εἰς has already invaded the territory of the static verbs and the verbs of being so that we find even εἶναιεἰς.

See R. 591, etc., on the entire subject. “In the name”=in union or in connection with the revelation, etc. There is such a “name” of Christ in connection with which we are baptized, but no such “name” of Paul, which makes it absurd even to think of being baptized “in the name of Paul.”

1 Corinthians 1:14

14 Paul is grateful to God for the fact that, while he labored in Corinth, he was providentially led so that he personally baptized only a few among the first converts in the Corinthian congregation. I thank God that I baptized none of you save Crispus and Gaius. He can write “none of you” because this states the rule of his procedure; he then adds the few exceptions. These were so few in number that they could never constitute a party on the ground of their baptism through the agency of Paul. Crispus is the late ruler of the Jewish synagogue, one of the very first converts to be gained in Corinth, Acts 18:8, who was baptized by Paul. Gaius we know as Paul’s host on his later visit to Corinth when Paul there wrote the letter to the Romans, Rom. 16:23.

1 Corinthians 1:15

15 The negative purpose clause: lest anyone should say that you were baptized in my name, depends on the previous ὅτι clause: “that I baptized none of you,” etc., and not on the main verb: “I thank God.” If Paul had baptized many in those early days of his labor in Corinth, and if all these now gave Paul’s name to a party that had been formed by them, those of the other parties or any slanderous person among them might say that those people who constituted Paul’s party had been baptized in Paul’s name.

To understand what Paul refers to we should not think of a substitution of the name of Paul for that of the Trinity in the formula of baptism, for that is not the idea to be conveyed. To be baptized in Paul’s name is an expression that is parallel to the one that was well known, namely to be baptized in Christ’s name or in Jesus’ name. “Christ” and “Jesus” are not found in the baptismal formula, so also Paul’s name need not be in order to make it a baptism in his name. Although it is administered in the name of the Triune God, baptism is said to be, a baptism in Jesus’ name because he is the saving Mediator (note above “crucified”); and thus the sacrament is distinguished from the various Jewish washings and lustrations that were connected with the old ceremonial law. Baptism in Paul’s name, while, of course, using the Trinitarian formula for the act, would mean to place the mediatorial saving power in Paul’s person. The outrageous idea which Paul combats throughout is that men or any man should in any way be substituted for Christ in the church, whether by loving attachment or by vituperative hostility (“lest anyone should say”). We may today be glad to say that we were baptized (confirmed or married) by some beloved and revered pastor, but let no one go beyond that and attribute any special efficacy to that pastor’s acts.

1 Corinthians 1:16

16 Some are surprised that Paul should add: Now I baptized also the household of Stephanas; besides I do not know whether I baptized anyone else. Stephanas was an important person who together with his family had done much for the Corinthians. At this very time he was in Ephesus with Paul, 1 Cor. 16:15. The question is asked: “How could the baptism of so important a family come to Paul’s mind as a kind of afterthought?” The answer lies in 16:15. Stephanas was “the first fruits of Achaia” (note: not of Corinth), and while he was now a member of the congregation in Corinth he had been baptized in Athens where he was the first person in all Achaia (Greece) to be converted. When Paul runs over in his mind the persons whom he had baptized in Corinth he naturally did not at once remember this family whom he baptized before he even reached Corinth.

There is likewise surprise that Paul should confess: “Besides I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.” A considerable time had elapsed since Paul had left Corinth, and he had been very busy in other places. Here, as elsewhere, we see that God does not proceed in a mechanical fashion in Inspiration, but that he uses the minds of the chosen writers with such powers as they have. In this instance God does not consider it necessary to stimulate Paul’s memory itself or to give it other aid so as to recall the entire list of people whom he had baptized while he was in Corinth. He may or he may not have baptized a few more. The point to be noted is this, and that alone is stressed, that Paul never baptized a sufficient number to constitute a party of any kind in the Corinthian congregation, and he is glad of that fact.

1 Corinthians 1:17

17 This may, however, cause surprise. Should Paul, like our pastors, not be happy to have brought as many families as possible into the church by means of baptism? Paul explains at once (γάρ): For Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel. This explanation is perhaps even more surprising than the question of surprise which it answers. It was a habit of Paul’s, we may say, to pursue a thought to its real end, and to do so at once or eventually. This is the case here.

The Lord’s commission reads: “Disciple by baptizing,” μαθητεύσατεβαπτίζοντες, Matt. 28:19, and, thinking superficially, one might conclude that the apostles were to go on baptizing as many people as possible, but this is not the case. The duty of the apostles (the chosen men whom the Lord sent, ἀπέστειλε) was to go from place to place and to spread the gospel (note εὑαγγελίζεσθαι) as far as possible. Thus the work assigned to them is really preaching and teaching. The work of administering baptism when the preaching and the teaching had produced conversion was a matter that any assistant of an apostle could easily attend to, for it certainly required no immediate apostolic call.

So also the elders or pastors whom the apostles appointed in the newly founded congregations went on indefinitely, baptizing the new converts that were won after the apostles had left. Nothing derogatory is thus implied in regard to the sacrament itself or to its vital importance, it is merely the slight task of administering the sacrament of which Paul speaks. The chief apostolic work, that for which men of no lesser standing than apostles were required, Paul declares is εὑαγγελίζεσθαι, spreading the gospel itself in the wide world.

With the word εὑαγγελίζεσθαι Paul reaches the great truth which he intends to elaborate more fully in this letter, this matter of preaching the gospel and judging rightly those who do this preaching. The point at issue in Corinth is therefore at once added: to preach the gospel not in word-wisdom in order that the cross of Christ may not be made empty.

Much has been written about the “wisdom” which Paul begins to discuss. This σοφία is beyond question a vital term in this first part of Paul’s letter. At this early stage of our study we need to note only that this is “the wisdom of the wise,” v. 19, and that it goes together with “the prudence of the prudent”; it is “the wisdom of the world,” v. 20, and is opposed by another wisdom, “the wisdom of God,” and by Christ himself as the embodiment of “God-wisdom.” More details will be furnished by the paragraphs that follow, but already here we have enough information to determine what the σοφία which Paul repudiates signifies.

It cannot signify merely the philosophic form of preaching the gospel as though this is forbidden to Paul; also, as distinguished from this form, it is quite self-evident that Paul would not preach the substance of the worldly wisdom of his time. We need not sharply divide substance from form. It should be rather self-evident that, where the substance is to be found, there the natural and the proper form to express that substance ought also to appear; and where the substance is absent, the form that accompanies it ought also to disappear; and if it is appropriated by another substance, the form will be unnatural, a mere mask that honest men will discard. The genitive λόγου also does not mean “form,” for in verse 18 Paul uses λόγος with reference to the cross of Christ.

This distinction between form and substance overlooks the preposition ἐν: Paul dare not preach ἐνσοφίαλόγου, “in word-wisdom.” The preposition denotes sphere. Paul’s preaching of the gospel must remain entirely outside of the sphere here indicated. The inside of this forbidden sphere is σοφίαλόγου, both nouns are without the article so that they are practically a compound term, Wortweisheit, “word-wisdom.” The chief term is, of course, “wisdom”; this is to be taken in the sense indicated in the two verses following. The minor term is “word” in its natural sense of “statement,” the expression of thought by means of language. “Word” is here practically equivalent to “doctrine,” save that the doctrine is also spoken. Paul is to keep his entire gospel preaching away from the sphere, the inside of which consists of the world’s “wisdom-statement” or “wisdom-doctrine.”

The translation of our versions is rather misleading: “wisdom of words.” The Greek does not have the plural, and Paul does not have in mind a wisdom that consists of “words” or offers only “words.” Moreover, we should not overlook the fact that the whole matter of preaching the gospel, εὑαγγελίζεσθαι, also deals with λόγος, “statement” or “doctrine,” for in the very next verse we meet “the word (λόγος) of the cross,” and again in 2:4 Paul has “my word (λόγος) and my proclamation (κήρυγμα),” both terms denoting the substance he proclaims.

We have a parallel in the Judaizers we meet in Galatia. They preached the gospel in connection with the law, they mingled the two and thereby nullified the gospel. They made of Christ a law-Christ, a Christ that does not, of course, exist. Something similar occurred in Corinth where Greek philosophic notions prevailed. The danger was present that some would admire and desire to have preached to them, not the gospel that Christ proclaimed, but a wisdom-gospel, a philosophy-gospel, a gospel that was fitted to the proud Greek learning of the day.

A similar situation exists today with regard to our current, so-called “science.” Preachers who accept the hypotheses and the speculations of this “science” without question try to put the gospel or what they make of the gospel into what they consider a necessary and fitting connection with (ἐν) this “science,” especially with “evolution” and its supposed but spurious facts and deductions. The resulting mixture is not the gospel. Paul’s οὑ, “not,” is highly peremptory even by its position at the head of the phrase: “not in word-wisdom.” It completely bars out this kind of procedure. The gospel is in no way to be accommodated to any modern scientific or other wisdom. The plea of modernists that certain Scriptural “categories of thought” are worn out and must now be replaced by modern categories is a species of deception that does away with eternal, unchanging verities under the claim that they are only temporary modes of thought.

What this mode of procedure results in, and what Christ’s purpose is in forbidding it, Paul states with brevity and with force: “in order that the cross of Christ may not be made empty.” The combination of human wisdom with the gospel makes the gospel itself of none effect, κενός, “empty,” without inner reality or substance. The gospel would not only lose some quality or some part of itself; it would evaporate entirely and leave only a hollow show of gospel terms and phrases. Instead of saying that the gospel would be made void and empty, Paul writes “the cross of Christ,” because this is the very heart of the gospel. If the cross is cancelled or lost, the entire gospel is gone. On the cross Christ died for our sins, and this is in brief what “the cross” signifies: atonement for sin and guilt, reconciliation with God, forgiveness and peace blood-bought. Everything else contained in the gospel radiates from this vital center. If this center is blotted out, all the rays emanating from it are dissipated in everlasting night.

II. The Foolishness of Preaching the Cross of Christ, 1:18–31

1 Corinthians 1:18

18 The new paragraph begins with an explanatory γάρ and connects with what Paul has just said about emptying out the cross of Christ. To nullify the cross is to nullify the gospel, no matter how this may be done. Preachers and hearers who are guilty of this nullification may, of course, still use the term “cross of Christ” and may make it mean this or that according to their own wisdom, but the substance will be gone, only the shell of the cross will be left. “For” explains the matter by stating the nature of the cross: For the word of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness, yet unto us who are being saved it is the power of God.

The first sentence points out where the trouble lies. Paul writes the λόγος of the cross, which is the same term that was used in the preceding verse. This “word” of the cross is the “statement” or “doctrine” by which the cross of Christ is set before our hearts so that we may believe and accept it in trust. We at once see that “word” cannot refer to mere form as distinct from substance. This “word” contains, offers, and bestows all that is included in the cross, in Christ’s sacrificial and atoning death.

Yet when certain people hear this blessed “word” of the cross they look at it only with the eyes of their human wisdom and thus deem it to be only μωρία, “foolishness.” They see no sense in it. Some try to put sense into it: they add their own σοφία to this σταυρός, their “wisdom” to this “cross.” After it is thus embellished, but in reality nullified, they are pleased with the gospel (as they still call it) and with the cross. Alas, these are the ἀπολλύμενοι, those in process of going to perdition. This present participle is qualitative or descriptive. It does not, however, convey the idea that they are from eternity fated to go to perdition; it merely describes these people as they are when they hear about the cross and think it all foolishness. Some of them may later on still be won for the cross although Paul intimates nothing on that point.

It is altogether evident that they are on the road to perdition for the reason that the one means able to save them, “the word of the cross,” sounds like “silliness” to them. Nor will they gain anything by altering either the cross or the word of the cross, the gospel. Such an alteration would, in fact, utterly deprive them of all help.

In the two antithetical statements which Paul makes regarding the word of the cross he says nothing about the wonderful power of this word to enlighten the heart so that this word eventually appears as what it really is, not foolishness, but the efficacious wisdom of God. He is content to set down the two contrasting statements. His one object is to show the utter folly of trying to improve the word of the cross by casting it into the word of human wisdom in order to get rid of its apparent “foolishness” for a certain class of people. The Corinthians must know how great this folly is so that they, who now have and believe the word of the cross, may not after all suffer shipwreck in faith and also be classed with those that are perishing.

The μέν is followed by δέ, which indicates the balance between the two statements. This same “word of the cross” (note it well) “to them that are being saved, (namely) to us, is the power of God.” This cannot seemingly be true, but it is nonetheless. Again we have a present participle which is qualitative and descriptive and conveys the idea that these persons are in a saved condition and continue therein. Paul adds ἡμῖν, “to us,” and merges himself with the Corinthians and assumes that all of them as a unit cling to the cross by faith. Of course, only by “the word of the cross,” i.e., by the saving power of both that word and that cross are they σωζόμενοι, such as are being saved. But this very fact shows that for them the cross is, actually is, δύναμιςΘεοῦ, Gotteskraft, a power of God that demonstrates itself as such by saving.

When he is thus contrasting the two ideas why does Paul not say that the word of the cross is “God’s wisdom”? Because “power” is the only proper correlative to “being saved.” Power—nothing less—is required to save. Yet this δύναμις or “power” should not be regarded as omnipotent power, the almightiness which called the world into being by its fiat. This power cannot rescue sinners; if it could, the cross on Calvary would never have been needed. The power Paul has in mind is God’s grace which alone reaches sinners.

“Those that are being saved” is the proper opposite to “those that are perishing.” So in this group of opposites “God’s power” is the term that correctly matches “foolishness.” That which is “foolishness” is always powerless and cannot save those who are perishing; and what we deem to be “foolishness,” even though it be most wonderful power, we throw aside and thus prevent it from saving us. Yet the direct contrast which Paul draws in regard to the word of the cross is only a preliminary explanation which shows that the judgment in regard to this word depends on two directly opposite kinds of people. More is to follow. Yet even now it is clear that the Corinthians and we could do ourselves no greater harm than to let those who despise and spurn the gospel alter that gospel and make it something that pleases them.

1 Corinthians 1:19

19 Before proceeding Paul substantiates what he has just said by a Scripture quotation, citing Isa. 29:14: For it is written:

I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,

And the prudence of the prudent will I reject.

The perfect tense γέγραπται = has been written and now stands so. These perfects, which are used so often, imply that the written Word stands for all time, for every age, with all that the Word contains, Rom. 15:4. The two lines quoted from Isaiah are Hebrew poetry in the form of a parallelismus membrorum. In this instance the parallelism is coordinate: the second line restates the thought of the first line in other words. The beauty of the poetry thus lies in the thought itself as much as in the form of expression. In the days of King Hezekiah, God declares in regard to the political cunning and the secret, tricky plans of this king’s advisers, by which they hoped to escape the Assyrian danger, that he would deal wondrously with his people by at last saving it by his own great deeds so that the wisdom of the wise would perish and be forced to hide itself.

The LXX makes God the subject of the two declarations. Paul is content to follow this translation. But instead of the Hebrew “shall be hid,” LXX, “I will hide,” Paul writes, “I will reject.” When Paul translates independently into Greek he gives the sense rather than the words, for a rejected thing is cast aside, disappears, and is thus hidden.

The quotation is very much to the point with its statement in regard to the wisdom of the wise, etc. This “wisdom” of Hezekiah’s advisers was exactly like that which was trying to magnify itself in Corinth. It emanated, not from God, but from godless thinking. The “prudence” of their tricky scheming failed to take into account God’s promise and his power and was thus fit only to be cast aside and to be utterly forgotten. Paul would have his readers conclude from this quotation that what God did with this kind of wisdom in the days of old he does with all wisdom of this kind: he will destroy it and bring it to nought.

1 Corinthians 1:20

20 In a triumphant tone Paul now declares that God’s threat in regard to this spurious wisdom was actually carried out. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this age? did not God make foolish the wisdom of this world?

All of these questions are uttered in one breath as it were and are really but one question. Paul is no longer quoting but is merely alluding to Isa. 19:12 and 33:18, much as all of us do when we refer to our A. V. If we are well read in it, some of its expressions rise to our lips almost automatically. In Isa. 19:12 the prophet asks concerning Pharaoh’s supposedly wise counselors: “Where are thy wise men?” The very question implies that they have been made fools. When he recalls the prophet’s question Paul uses the singular σοφός, but this means “any wise one,” no matter which one; and thus Paul, too, implies that all of them have turned out to be fools.

In Isa. 33:18 the prophet describes the peace which shall follow after the terrors of the Assyrian danger are past. Men will then ask in astonishment, “What has become of the scribe, γραμματεύς, who was to tabulate the tribute that had been forced from the Jews?” They will also ask what has become of the man who was to weigh the money, and of the man who was to count the towers of the walls which the Assyrians had planned to capture: “Where are all of them!” Isaiah says, “All of them will be gone.” Out of the number of these significant questions Paul selects only the one concerning “the scribe” and, like Isaiah, asks, “Where is the scribe?” i.e., anyone that is a γραμματεύς. To these two questions which allude to Isaiah’s words of old Paul adds a question of his own, one that he regards as necessary in this connection, for which, however, the Old Testament furnishes no reference or no suggestion: “Where is the disputer of this age?”

While σοφός is a general expression and may designate any man that is governed by worldly wisdom, the term exactly describes the people in Corinth who were captivated by their bit of philosophy. The Greeks surely loved their σοφία, “wisdom,” and extended themselves to become σοφοί. The two other terms bear even a more precise reference. For γραμματεύς is the regular Jewish term for “scribe,” one who is learned in the Jewis law; and συζητητής is the regular Hellenic term for a “disputant” in the Greek philosophic schools and in their general discussions and debates. They sought to become expert in philosophical learning and in dialectical skill. The genitive “of this age” or “of this world age” is to be construed only with “disputer” and not with all three terms, for “the disputer of this age” is an expression that was coined by Paul himself while the other two terms were borrowed from Isaiah.

The term αἰών denotes an era, but one that is marked by what occurs in it and is thus stamped with a peculiar character. The Scriptures distinguish “this world age” from “the age to come.” The former denotes the world era in which we now live, which is marked by sin in all its manifestations; the latter denotes the blessed eternity that shall follow this present era. In a sense it is, of course, true that the wise, the scribe, and the disputer belong to this world age, for the three operate only with worldly, transient, spurious wisdom. In fact, they never get beyond this wisdom. It is the gospel alone which connects us with the era to come, and this gospel is the truth which all the wise of this world reject as long as they remain only worldly wise. Summing up, we may say: σοφός = one who is versed in a subject, here in philosophic ideas; γραμματεύς = one who is versed in literature; συζητητής = one who is versed in the art of discussion. All three of these abilities may, of course, be possessed by one person, for the Jewish scribes were also fond of disputing and of arguing, as were the Greek sophists.

Since the second reference to Isaiah introduces also the Jewish idea of σοφία, Paul’s three questions cover the entire domain of mere human or worldly wisdom, no matter by whom or in what manner it is traversed. If the Corinthians sought some of this “wisdom” in the heralds of the gospel, whether in the Jewish form of legalistic teaching after the manner of a “scribe” or in the Hellenistic form after the manner of a Greek “disputer” or dialectician, they were surely wrong.

This is made self-evident by the next question which implies an affirmative answer: “Did not God make foolish the wisdom of the world?” He most certainly did. All that the wise, the scribe, and the disputer have to offer is here summarized in the phrase “the wisdom of the world,” the genitive of possession also characterizing this “wisdom” as belonging to the world (the world = men). The expression also reveals what this wisdom really is. All of this world wisdom God turned into silliness, and the aorist ἐμώρανεν states the historic fact. Paul would, of course, not say that God wrought a change in this wisdom and made something else out of it, namely silliness; he merely showed what this wisdom really is, namely nothing but silliness. Men merely thought it wisdom; when God touched it, its true character of folly became evident.

1 Corinthians 1:21

21 When and how did God do this? We must have full proof for what Paul asserts as a fact. He furnishes that proof and introduces it with the logical γάρ, “for.” For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, God made it his good pleasure through the foolishness of preaching to save the believing.

The world of men failed completely in regard to the one and supreme thing it needed: it did not know God. The aorist οὑκἔγνω states the whole tragic fact as a fact. Ἔγνω does not refer to mere intellectual knowledge but to the genuine realization which grips, holds, and dominates the entire person. Men never attained to this real knowledge of God; they did not know him. When he speaks to them in the gospel even today, they laugh; they do not think that it is God speaking. See John 8:19 regarding the Jews with reference to this point; even though they talked about God and boasted about him they did not know him.

In the New Testament ἐπειδή is not temporal but causal: “since.” Here it introduces the reason that God employed such a thing as “foolishness” when he was dealing with the world in order to produce such a mighty result as salvation. The phrase “in the wisdom of God” is strongly emphatic by reason of its position. The article as well as the genitive mark this as a particular, specific wisdom, namely God’s own wonderful wisdom. This genitive “of God” shows, on the one hand, whose thoughts of wisdom are contained in this wisdom and, on the other hand, what character this wisdom thus possesses.

The preposition ἐν marks a sphere: God placed men, the whole world of men, into this sphere which was entirely filled with his wisdom, and yet despite all this they did not know him. Here is a grand universe of wisdom spread out before the eyes and the hearts of men and surrounding them on every side: all the wonderful, incomprehensible thoughts of God in the whole round of nature, the works of his creation and his providence, the whole course of history, the wondrous constitution of man himself, a cosmos in parvo, and, in the case of the Jews, even the Old Testament revelation in addition. All this substance of divine wisdom lay before the world of men (ὁκόσμος) and normally should have had the effect that they should know the true God who was thus gloriously revealed, Acts 14:15–17. But the very opposite resulted, Acts 17:23, etc.

Why? Because men applied their own foolish, worldly wisdom to this wondrous sphere of divine wisdom. They employed the wrong medium (διά). The world operated (and still does so) “through its wisdom,” the substance of its own thinking and reasoning. Even the Jews read the Old Testament, not in its own light, but in the light of their own notions and their own desires and thus failed utterly to see the God of grace. As Jesus told them, God was not their Father, they did not know him; if they had known him they would unquestionably have recognized his Son, John 8:19, etc.

The world’s wisdom always goes off into its own proud, self-sufficient, self-glorifying paths and thus blinds itself to God’s wisdom which is spread out around it. The astronomer gazes at the miracle of the stars for years and then tells us with an air of finality that he has found no God. The natural scientist announces that the brutes are his ancestors and declares that all life has evolved from a tiny cell that was found in the primordeal slime. Pantheism proclaims: “God is all, and all is God.” So the catalog of human achievement lengthens and proclaims what “the world” “through its wisdom” (using it as a medium) has done and still does “in the wisdom of God” (in this vast sphere of most wondrous wisdom.).

This is true even of the church. When the wisdom of revelation as it is found in the Scriptures is read through the medium of our own preconceived notions (“through its wisdom”), the true knowledge of God and of salvation or of some blessed divine doctrine is perverted (“did not know”). Not even intellectually did the world know God, to say nothing about having attained to spiritual and saving knowledge. The result of the world’s “wisdom” shows it to be altogether μωρία, “foolishness.” Paul’s proof is incontrovertible. But by stating this proof for the fact he asserted Paul also shows why God then proceeded as he did (ἐμώρανεν, made foolish the world’s wisdom).

We now learn also how God proceeded when he made foolish the world’s wisdom. He did so in a most astounding way. He did it by the silliness of preaching. Paul writes, “It was God’s good pleasure” to proceed in this matter as he did, εὑδόκησεν, he “pleased” to do so (we also have the noun εὑδοκία, God’s “good pleasure”). The verb as well as the noun signify 1) God’s free determination; 2) a determination that is good and gracious toward those concerned. Nothing compels God, he is moved to act by his own heart and will.

And again, when his good pleasure acts it always blesses; it is never God’s εὑδοκία to destroy or to damn. God’s good pleasure is the expression of his saving love and grace. In determining his gracious plans God, of course, took into account the condition of the world as Paul here describes it. Whereas the world failed because it used the false medium of its own wisdom (“through its wisdom”), God chose the very opposite kind of a medium; instead of “wisdom” he actually took “foolishness,” silliness, the last thing anyone would expect him to take, “the foolishness of preaching.”

Be sure to note the correspondence of the two διά phrases, and that in each instance the preposition introduces a medium. By employing foolishness where the world used wisdom God really made a joke of the world and of its lofty wisdom. This is, however, the blessed irony of divine love. For whereas the world failed utterly with its tremendous show of wisdom, God succeeded without the least trouble with this tiny medium that looks so useless and even so childish.

“Preaching,” κήρυγμα, is not the act of making a proclamation but the contents of what is proclaimed. The verb κηρύσσειν = to announce as a herald, κῆρυξ, and is one of the standard terms for preaching. To announce as the Savior of the world one who died the vile death of a criminal on the cross seems, indeed, to be the acme of foolishness. To expect that this announcement will do what all the world with its mighty effort of wisdom failed to do, namely actually to lift man up again into communion with God, only intensifies the impression of utter foolishness. In all the world such a scheme was never heard of.

But we should note carefully that in this proceeding God breaks completely with the σοφία or wisdom of the world. Not even in one slight point does he accommodate himself to this wisdom. He runs directly counter to it. That shows the great mistake we make when we try to make Christ palatable to our age (as we call it), try to accomodate the gospel to men and to their wisdom and their ways of thinking, try to make the κήρυγμα or proclamation reasonable to them. The gospel is not even an argument, a piece of reasoning that is gauged to convince men; it is only an announcement. And the astounding thing about this announcement is the fact that it meets men’s hearts square on, in a direct clash, that it aims to reverse them completely, to set them going in the very opposite direction.

It intends to convert, to turn them completely around; nothing less. God does not even use a special degree of γνῶσις (compare ἔγνω) or “knowledge” so that only people who are educated to the necessary philosophic degree may be reached. In fact, this “foolishness” that God chose differs even from the “wisdom” he revealed in nature, etc., before men’s eyes. Search the world of nature as we will, it does not even put us on the track of the gospel.

And yet this “foolishness” succeeds: σῶσαι, the aorist infinitive states what is actual, it actually saves, rescues, delivers; it accomplishes the very thing the perishing world needs, the mighty thing which it could and did not attain with all its wisdom. Of what benefit is all the wisdom of this world or, for that matter, all else that men have in this world if it fails to bring them salvation? But note well: “to save the believing.” The divine κήρυγμα and πίστις are correlatives. The proclamation calls for faith and is received only by faith. The verb “to believe” as well as the noun, which in the Greek is derived from the same root (πιστεύειν and πίστις), denote the confidence and trust of the heart which rely on the gospel proclamation and on its contents. The present participle characterizes the persons: such as believe and go on believing or trusting the glad news. God revenged himself upon the wise world by using foolishness to bring about its salvation—but what a blessed revenge!

Both “the foolishness of preaching” and “believing” lie in a sphere that is entirely different from that in which “the wisdom of this world,” the wisdom of “the wise, the scribe, and the disputer” operate, namely in the higher domain of spiritual contact which is wrought by God through the gospel of Christ. Again we should not imagine that God first tried the one way, σοφία and γνῶσις, and when that failed, used another, μωρία and πίστις, by which he then finally succeeded. While the foolishness of preaching was established for all nations during the New Testament era it also marked the entire Old Testament era back to the days of Adam. Faith is the door to salvation from the very beginning.

1 Corinthians 1:22

22 A second “since” introduces a parallel to the previous sentence, but a parallel that is elaborated in fuller detail. We have had the general term κόσμος, “world,” we now have an explication of that term, “Jews and Greeks.” Since both Jews ask for signs and Greeks seek after wisdom, we, etc.

The two καί, “both … and,” combine Jews and Greeks into one great class and place them over against “we.” They differ from each other, but their difference does not change their relation to the gospel. “Jews” are a prominent part of this general class, namely the great majority of their nation that persisted in unbelief; “Greeks” constitute another prominent part, and they are here named as the chief representatives of the Gentile or non-Jewish world. Paul does not add “barbarians,” for the mention of the two most prominent classes is adequate in this connection. No articles are used, hence “Jews” as a class and “Greeks” as a class are referred to.

Whereas Paul previously uses the general term “the wisdom of the world” he now specifies the two grand types in which this world wisdom appears: the Jews “ask for signs”—this has come to be their characteristic; while Greeks “seek after wisdom”—this is their distinguishing mark. The Jews ask or require (αἰτοῦσι) signs because they had the Old Testament. That Testament promised great signs in connection with the Messiah, and when Jesus came, they felt that they had the right to require them. Now Jesus met the Old Testament promises most completely and wrought the very signs foretold by God in great abundance. He more than accredited himself and thus pleads with the Jews: “Believe the works,” John 14:11. But instead of following the Old Testament the Jews applied their own wisdom to its promises and thus expected a Messiah who was equipped, not with signs of grace and mercy, but with signs “from heaven,” juggling the clouds or making the moon and the stars play hide and seek.

The Greeks were of a different type. Having no Bible, they were left to their own thoughts and their own reasonings. They accordingly sought (ζητοῦσι), tried to attain, “wisdom,” something in the way of a rational explanation of the universe and of their own being. They demanded principles, chains of reasoning, systems of philosophy which began with some fixed point and reached out as far as possible from that. They found, too, what they were seeking after. But what they found was like shifting sand, for one system abrogated another, and they finally ended in a skepticism like that of Pilate who exclaimed: “What is truth?”

Both of these types of world wisdom still persist but now in modernized form. Some want the church to heal all social and even all physical evils. They demand an imposing, outward ecclesiastical organization that will sweep the world before it. They look for a millennium and the outward triumph of the gospel over all the world. Signs, signs, big tangible, overpowering results! Others bank on their reason; they assume that their intellect is able to penetrate into everything. So they follow philosophy in its latest forms, “science” with its claims and hypotheses, other kinds of modern learning, and refuse to take seriously anything else. All these fail, and in the very nature of the case must fail.

1 Corinthians 1:23

23 Whereas previously Paul says that “it was God’s good pleasure” he now writes ἡμεῖς, “we,” the preachers of the gospel through whom God sends out his proclamation. Since both Jews and Greeks are on the wrong track, we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a deathtrap, to Gentiles foolishness.

Paul defines succinctly what he means by “the foolishness of preaching.” What is this “foolishness”? “Christ crucified.” Christ, the One whom God anointed as our Redeemer, died on the cross and won salvation for the world. The perfect participle ἐσταυρωμένον states that, once crucified, Christ now stands before us continuously as such. The fact of his crucifixion has become something permanent and enduring from the very moment when that fact occurred. This crucified Christ is both the sum of the gospel and the center from which every part of the gospel radiates, and in which all of its parts meet. This Christ “we preach,” κηρύσσομεν, the proper verb for κήρυγμα, “we proclaim” as God’s heralds, shout him out to the ears of the world. The present tense means that this is our one, constant business.

The amplification is extended by two datives which are marked by the particles of correspondence μέν and δέ. The translation: “to Jews a stumbling block,” is incorrect and one that misses the main point. One may stumble, even fall and rise again, but the word used here refers to something that is fatal and deadly. A σκάνδαλον (later form of σκαδάληθρον) is the stick of a trap to which the bait is fixed and by which the trap is sprung, metaphorically an offense, but always one that is fatal in its effects. The figure is that of a deathtrap which kills the victim. What acts thus for the Jews and makes them reject Christ is the fact of his having been crucified.

From this fact, of course, result many other things such as the complete abrogation of circumcision and of the ceremonial law, the absence of the signs they expected, etc. But this offense ceases entirely the moment the false wisdom that lies at the root of it is given up and recognized as spurious.

Now the second dative: “to Gentiles foolishness.” The word “Gentiles” is a wider term which embraces all non-Jews and thus makes plain what Paul means by Greeks who, because of their culture and their learning, were the upper class and thus the chief representatives of all Gentiles. In their wisdom these Gentiles scoff at the very idea that Christ’s blood should expiate the world’s guilt. “Anything but that!” they reply. The whole story of Christ is so much silliness to them. The old “blood theology” still has these opponents who consider it μωρία.

1 Corinthians 1:24

24 The two depressing datives are followed by a third which sounds a tone of joy and triumph: but to the called, Jews as well as Greeks, Christ, God’s power and God’s wisdom.

The two terms “deathtrap” and “foolishness” are not to be regarded subjectively, a trap and a foolishness in the opinion of Jews and of Gentiles, but objectively as expressing God’s intention; for he intended them to be nothing less than an actual trap and actual foolishness to this worldly wisdom. Christ was that and is that today, and God wants it so. This gives us the clue to the third dative: “to the called, Jews as well as Greeks.” This third class is composed of both Jews and Greeks, ethnologically considered, and becomes, one class by being freed from its former false worldly wisdom. These people are now “the called” (see v. 2), and the verbal states that God called them (by the gospel) and that this call proved effective in them by separating them from “the world.” The called are the saved mentioned in v. 18 and the believing mentioned in v. 21.

In σωζόμενοι, those that are being saved, the reference is to the divine agent who saves and to the supreme blessing which he bestows, namely salvation. In κλητοί, the called, there is the same reference to the agent and another to the effective means employed, namely the call (gospel). While these two terms show what has happened to us, πιστεύοντες shows what has occurred in us: we ourselves believe, but in response to the proclamation which came to us and called forth faith in our hearts. Hodge repeats Calvin’s teaching: “There is a twofold call of the gospel; the one external by the Word; and the other internal by the Spirit.” Paul teaches that there is one and only one call, namely that contained in ἡμωρίατοῦκηρύγματος, “the foolishness of preaching,” the Word, the gospel. This call is identical for all men. Paul tells us here that some reject this call and that others are won by it.

The Word and the Spirit are never separated; where the Word is, there is the Spirit, and where the Spirit is, there is the Word. The κλητοί of our passage received no other call than did the Jews and the Greeks who resisted its gracious power.

Again, not merely subjectively in the opinion of the called, but objectively in fact, the Christ whom we preach is both “God’s power” and “God’s wisdom,” who is proved as such by the successful call of the κλητοί. In their own experience they have found Christ to be that. In both expressions “God” is emphatic: God’s wisdom. What “the called” find Christ to be matches in a way what the foolish Jews and Greeks require and seek. The Jews require signs; but these could be wrought only by God’s power. Yet the most stupendous signs wrought by omnipotence in the skies could not save a single Jew; but this power of God, the power of his grace in Christ Jesus, did save both Jews and Greeks.

The Greeks seek wisdom, speculative, earthly wisdom. Yet all the philosophies and all the sciences of these two millenniums have never saved a single Gentile. This the wisdom of God alone has done, actually and wondrously saved both Jews and Greeks. “God’s wisdom” is in a sense “foolishness”; unregenerate reason always thinks so. But the fact that this “foolishness” does actually save proves, not by a system of philosophic reasoning that is intended for the intellect, but by actual fact and reality as exhibited in “the called” that are saved, that this “foolishness” is “God’s wisdom.”

The idea of “power” is new in this paragraph, yet it is involved in the term “to save,” v. 21, for only power can do that; and it is implied in the demand for “signs,” for only power can work them. Power and wisdom conjoin in the description of “Christ” as the content of the saving proclamation of the gospel. Power and wisdom are inseparable attributes in God. Both are needed for accomplishing our salvation. So Christ is both in one, God’s power, God’s wisdom. Only divine wisdom could plan to make Christ crucified known in the world by means of the gospel, and only divine power, the power of grace, could execute this plan of wisdom and actually do this saving by it.

The emphatic genitives “God’s” characterize this power and this wisdom as being infinitely above everything that is merely human, above all that human minds could possibly conceive. Yet the caution should be added never to confuse this power of God with his omnipotence, for we are saved by the power of grace, love, mercy, attributes that are altogether distinct from omnipotence.

1 Corinthians 1:25

25 That Christ is God’s power and God’s wisdom is seen from a subjective fact, that experienced by the called who are actually and in fact saved through Christ. Paul does not rest with that thought. He adds the objective proof, for even apart from the called it is true and a mighty fact which the Corinthians and all of us should keep before our eyes that God’s power and his wisdom are supreme. Why is it that the called have the experience they do? Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

It is difficult to render the exact meaning of the Greek into English, for instead of the abstract term μωρία, our English “foolishness,” which Paul has been using thus far he now writes τὸμωρὸντοῦΘεοῦ, which we can reproduce only in an awkward way: “the thing that is foolish on God’s part.” The context shows that Paul has in mind, not merely the general quality of foolishness, but beyond that also the foolish thing itself with which God operates, which is Christ crucified. We see that this neuter τὸμωρόν continues to match the idea of σοφία or wisdom. To match the other idea, that of δύναμις or power, Paul again uses the neuter τὸἀσθενὲςτοῦΘεοῦ, “the thing that is weak on God’s part,” instead of the abstract ἀσθένεια, “God’s weakness.” Again, as the context shows, Christ crucified is referred to. Compare 2 Cor. 13:4: “He was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth through the power of God”; to which Paul adds: “For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him through the power of God toward you.” By using these two neuters Paul avoids ascribing the abstract qualities of foolishness and of weakness to God as though they were two of his actual attributes, for as attributes both of them are contradictory to God’s very being.

God indeed uses a foolish and a weak thing in giving salvation to a world that loves to see wisdom and power in its own false fashion, but this foolish thing on God’s part “is wiser than men,” and this weak thing on his part “is stronger than men.” Only the two facts are stated, and they are to impress us as facts. Yet they imply so much with regard to God that our minds cannot grasp it all. God moved only a little finger, as it were, in confounding the proud notions of wisdom and of power which the world entertained. What might have happened if he had called on all the resources of his infinite wisdom and power? He made only a slight move, as it were, one that appears so inadequate, but behold its actual tremendous effect! For it is surely a foolish and a weak thing to let God’s own Son die miserably on the cross; it did not only appear so to men although it did that, too, in the highest degree.

And yet this foolish and this weak thing outranks and absolutely outdoes all the wisdom and all the power of men, not only the wisdom and the power they actually possess, but also all that they conceive in their minds. If men were asked how God should proceed to save the world they would certainly not say by sending his Son to the cross. Yet this is what God did, and, behold, this act saves! So wise is this foolish thing, so powerful this weak thing. The adjective ἰσχυρότερον has in it ἰσχύς, Staerkebesitz, inherent strength, irrespective of whether it is put forth or not. It is thus distinguished from κράτος, strength that is put forth.

This fits well the idea of Christ crucified as here presented, for inherent in his cross but not outwardly displayed at all is this strength of God that exceeds all that men know.

1 Corinthians 1:26

26 We may begin a new paragraph with v. 26 as also the address “brethren” would lead us to do. Yet the line of thought begun in v. 18 continues, and the connective γάρ shows that the subject is to be further elucidated. This also explains why Paul ends v. 25 with a duality, power and wisdom, and does not bring the two down to a unit. For it is his custom—an evidence of his great mastery in thinking through the great realities of God—first to expand a truth in two, three, or more lines as may be required and then to focus these lines into their one true, unified center where they come to rest. In no secular writer has the author ever found anything to compare with the mastery found in Paul.

So Paul begins with γάρ as if he would say: What I have just told you about this wisdom of God’s μωρόν and this strength of God’s ἀσθενές you can actually see in your own selves. For look at your calling, brethren, that there are not many wise after the flesh, not many powerful, not many wellborn. The Corinthians need only look at their own κλῆσις, the call of grace that came to them through the gospel and by its power of grace made them what they now are, namely κλητοί. Let them glance over the list of members in Corinth. The verb is imperative: “look at,” not indicative: “you see,” for the former fits the connection exactly.

What Paul wants the Corinthians to see is the plain fact that is open to all eyes that care to take note of it, “that there are not many wise,” etc. This ὅτι clause is epexegetical to τὴνκλῆσινὑμῶν, and we need supply only “are,” εἰσί. The great majority of the membership of the Corinthian congregation consisted of plain people although there were among them some men of intellectual and even political and social standing. There were slaves who stood very low in the social scale, freedmen or former slaves who were now set free who enjoyed a somewhat higher standing, and also men like Stephanas, Crispus, Sosthenes, and Erastus, the city treasurer (Rom. 16:23). “Not many wise,” etc., means, of course, that there were at least some in the Corinthian congregation who belonged to the higher classes. Paul does not need to say that they dropped all carnal pride in regard to their outward standing when they yielded to “the call.” But the fact is outstanding: God does not choose worldly greatness, he rejects it. His principle runs counter to that of the “world” most directly and emphatically. Where men have this type of worldly greatness, all pride in it is removed from their hearts when grace humbles them at the foot of the cross.

We now see why Paul left the duality in v. 25 and did not reduce it to a unity; he intends to expand and to broaden it before he finally reduces it to a unit. So he now enlarges it by the use of three terms: the wise, the powerful, and the wellborn. The first of these terms must have a modifier, “after the flesh,” to indicate what sort of “wise,” σοφοί, Paul has in mind. For the Scriptures, too, make us “wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus,” 2 Tim. 2:15. “Wise after the flesh” means wise after the norm or judgment of the flesh (κατά is frequently so used); and “flesh” marks the sinful and depraved character of the “world.” When anyone is thus wise after his own fleshly and worldly conceit and is drawn and won by God’s gracious call, his foolish conceit disappears through the humility of faith.

The other two terms are clear without a modifying phrase. The δύνατοι are those who are able and thus “mighty” to do far more than others. They may wield authority in one way or in another, be men who command respect by what they do and are capable of doing. The first two terms follow the two categories which Paul has thus far used, the third adds another, “the wellborn,” or noble, the aristocracy of birth, “blue blood.” Grace reaches even this high class and wins notable converts from it. In Corinth there were some converts from the so-called “best families.”

1 Corinthians 1:27

27 When Paul now states whom God did choose by means of his gracious call he expands this idea still more. He names four groups and then climaxes these four with a comprehensive and astonishing final group which also embraces these four. This is typical of Paul. He first expands widely and then concentrates all into a vital feature. On the contrary, God chose the foolish things of the world in order that he might put to shame the men that are wise; and God chose the weak things of the world in order that he might put to shame the things that are strong; etc.

These two groups are known to us from preceding statements, yet we note important new features regarding them in Paul’s restatement. When Paul repeats he loves to add; compare the two statements of Jesus to Nicodemus, John 3:3, 5; also Mark 10:23, 24. In the category of “wisdom” Paul has thus far used the abstract term μωρία or “foolishness” to indicate the opposite of “wisdom” and the neuter singular τὸμωρόν or “the foolish thing.” He now adds the neuter plural τὰμωρά or “the foolish things” in order to make the present statement entirely general so as to include not only persons as such but likewise some feature in or about them and, in fact, anything whatsoever that bears a character of this kind. The genitive τοῦκόσμου, the foolish things “of the world,” is added and is twice repeated in order to designate these things as being foolish in the evaluation of the world.

Not accidentally did God select the foolish things but purposely. He intended to heap shame on the σοφοί of the world. We should note that this term is masculine: the people or the men who are wise. Our versions are a little indefinite on this point. Note that in the next statement the corresponding term is not masculine but neuter. The world’s “wise men” are covered with honor, they bear high titles and university degrees, they have great fame and are looked upon as final authorities. Their professional pride is often according. With God, however, they have no standing whatever, they are completely cast out. They must be because all the σοφία of these worldly σοφοί is spurious and opposed to God.

When God chose the foolish things of the world his purpose was to heap shame on these men. The verb καταισχύνειν may mean to fill with the feeling of shame, beschaemen, or to bring to shame and disgrace, in Schande bringen; here the latter meaning is in place. This divine purpose is already fulfilled, for its date coincides with God’s elective act which has occurred in the past. In the presence of God shame is already their lot. Here in the world they still strut in high honor, but this strutting is all a hollow show, about to burst like a bubble the moment the election of God is revealed at the last day.

The next statement is nearly an exact parallel. This refers to the category of power. God chose “the weak things of the world,” the neuter plural is exactly like the one found in the previous statement. So also is the purpose clause: “in order to put to shame the things that are strong” (with inherent strength, compare v. 25). There is a change in the neuter plural: “strong things” whereas the previous statement has “wise men.” This expression does not, of course, intend to exempt the strong men, for this neuter plural embraces the entire category, whoever and whatever is strong in the eyes of the world. God intends to disgrace all of it by his choice.

He did so when he made his choice and shall do so when the effect of it shall be fully revealed. God was constrained to proceed in this manner because all the strong things in the κόσμος (world) of men are only strong shams, with no reality of strength in their make-up, and full of hostility against God. The whole world lieth in wickedness.

1 Corinthians 1:28

28 The third statement takes up the new category that is added in v. 26, “the wellborn”: and the base things of the world, τὰἀγενῆ, the very opposite of οἱεὑγενεῖς, and again we note the neuter plural of the entire category (persons and things in the widest sense). “The base things” are the base-born things or more exactly the things that have nothing whatever in their birth or origin to distinguish them, the commonest of the common. These God chose. This is an astounding fact when we think of the claims, honors, and pride of the people who deem themselves “wellborn.” Paul is not pedantic, and he does not add: “in order to put to shame the things that are wellborn.” There is no need to say it, we already know it.

So he at once adds: and the things that are accounted as nothing, as οὑδέν. Even the genitive “of the world” is dropped since, having read thus far, we have it in mind. The perfect participle = the things that were at one time set down as being nothing at all by the world and continue to be thus rated as nil. We are on the way to an anticlimax and certainly have descended very far. We laugh at things foolish; we scorn or pity the weak; we despise things base and common; and we utterly disregard things rated as nothing. The translation of our versions: “things that are despised,” is not exact enough and may mislead.

For the third and last time Paul repeats God chose and thus drives home this astounding fact. Each time the Greek reads: ἐξελέξατοὁΘεός. It is almost like a refrain, the subject and the predicate are reversed and each is thus made emphatic by its position. Moreover, both are emphatic in the Greek because of their position after the objects; and this occurs three times in succession. The composition as composition is masterly.

One might well be excused if he should suppose that when Paul reaches “the things accounted as nothing” he has come to the end of the anticlimax. Yet there is one last and still lower step that Paul does not fail to see: and the things that are not, that do not even exist. While this is the lowest step in the series, beyond which even the mind cannot go, it is at the same time more. Paul himself indicates that by not repeating: “God chose.” It is, of course, again God and his choice which take these things that are minus even an existence; there is no need to say it as far as that is concerned.

But when we are told that God chose for himself things that do not even exist, this last group in reality includes the four groups previously mentioned. A new light thus flashes back upon those four other groups. In foolish things true wisdom does not exist; in weak things true strength does not exist; in baseborn things true (divine) origin does not exist; in things that are counted as nothing true value does not exist. Nil runs through all four of them, something that does not exist. While this nil is one that the judgment of the world affixes to these four groups which it casts aside, the judgment of God in regard to these groups is by no means the reverse as if he has keener eyes than the world and sees wisdom, strength, good birth, and good value in these things and therefore chooses them. Quite the contrary; God, too, sees the nothingness in them.

When this is perceived, we shall see that Paul did not assemble five groups and range them in succession. He and we use only four to form a complete line. The fifth specification, “things that do not exist,” is not coordinate with the preceding four. Non-existence could be paired only with one other, namely existence. Now all these four are in reality hollow with non-existence, but in each of the four this is a non-existence of something specific, of wisdom, strength, etc. These types of non-existence end with the fourth group.

What Paul now adds is non-existence itself. The nil in the four is a nil privativum; the nil Paul states at the end is the nil negativum: non-existence itself. In this masterly way the four cords that dangle apart from each other are tied into a final knot. Did God choose lack of this and lack of that? Why, he chose very lack itself!

The negative μή in τὰμὴὄντα is altogether regular with a participle, and nothing subjective should be read into it. The question as to whether actual non-existence is referred to or only an existence that amounts to nothing is often answered in favor of the latter. But the fourth group means this, namely “things reckoned as nothing.” Besides, this raises the question as to in whose opinion “things non-existing” amount to nothing. It cannot be in God’s opinion because in three previous groups Paul writes “of the world”; yet it also cannot be in the world’s opinion because the world cannot possibly have an opinion regarding what does not exist. “The things that are not” simply are not apart from the opinion of anyone. Yet, although they are non-existent, God already sees, knows, and even chose them. Do you ask what they are?

The new life God’s grace creates in our hearts, our faith and our good works, our glory to be when we reach heaven. These God chose for himself before any of them were.

Three times Paul writes ἐξελέξατοὁΘεός with the resulting emphasis. The middle voice = God chose for himself; and the aorist, by a definite past act. This is really an eternal act although no modifier to that effect is added. It antedates the “call” in time, for on it the call rests and from it the call springs. The fact that God chose at all, and that he chose as he did, is due solely to himself. Yet this elective act is neither blind nor arbitrary, for he chose according to certain fixed and definite principles which are here revealed to us.

God elected the foolish, the weak, and the despised things of the world, not because in men of this class there is anything meritorious and deserving above others. He chose also some who are wise, great, noble, etc., not, indeed, as such, but as men whom he is able to make lowly and humble like the others he chose. There can be no merit in foolishness and lack of culture, in weakness and lack of strength, in baseness of birth, in complete good-for-nothingness, and, to sum it all up, in utter non-existence. How could there be? Yet God can work only where there is nothing. God can enter only where the place is not already filled.

Only where God can first sweep out what is “of the world” can he bring in what is “of the kingdom of heaven.”

We again have a purpose clause: in order that he might bring to nought the things that are. For this reason God chose “the things that are not.” The two purpose clauses found in v. 27 that Paul writes out, as well as the two others he might have written out in the first half of v. 28, merge in this final purpose clause which deals with all the things the world has. “The things that are,” τὰὄντα, embrace everything men see, know, admire, handle, everything they count as valuable and real. These things actually exist, such as worldly wisdom, power, good birth, etc., and are thus the opposites of the things that do not exist, such as no wisdom, no power, no nobility, no money, etc. Yet, while these things exist, they are all merely transient. They are a vain show and nothing more. Therefore it is a true, right, and most beneficial purpose that God expose them in their vanity and non-value lest men go on relying upon them to their everlasting disappointment and loss.

In the previous purpose clauses the verb employed is “put to shame”; here it is more intense: “to bring to nought,” to put completely out of commission, to abolish. The aorist intensifies the completeness: “actually abolish.” This purpose is fufilled throughout the ages and will reach its ultimate fulfillment at the last day when the last of the things of the world that are will be swept out of existence forever.

1 Corinthians 1:29

29 A final purpose clause concludes all that Paul says regarding God’s choosing: that no flesh should glory in the presence of God. We may call this the grand ultimate purpose. For this reason, it seems, Paul uses the rarer conjunction ὅπως (always with μή when it is negative) and makes this ultimate purpose stand out from the previous minor purposes that are introduced by ἵνα. The Greek idiom joins the negative to the verb: “not glory,” whereas the English joins it to the subject: “no flesh.” Back of this ultimate purpose there lie two thoughts: first, that all flesh is everlastingly trying to glory in God’s presence, and that God stops it on this account; secondly, that no flesh really has anything in which to glory, it only thinks it has, it only deceives and cheats itself, and that therefore for very truth’s sake and in order to undeceive men themselves God must stop this glorying. All have come short of the glory of God. Their only hope is to realize their utter emptiness. Then God will fill them with his own blessed and saving realities. “Flesh” means man in his fallen state, and the context allows us to include all that pertains to man in this state. “In the presence of God” reads as if the hour of judgment is referred to when man faces God, any hour when that happens.

1 Corinthians 1:30

30 In v. 26 Paul asks the Corinthians to look at themselves and at the character of their membership. In v. 27–29 the divine principle back of this kind of membership is described. In v. 30 Paul returns to the Corinthians and rounds out the thought begun in v. 26. Now of him are you in Christ Jesus, who was made wisdom to us from God and righteousness and sanctification and redemption.

The main emphasis is on ἐξαὑτοῦ, “of him,” and δέ is merely transitional (not “but”). The fact that the Corinthians are now what they are is due wholly to God; ἐκ denotes the originating cause, das ursaechliche Ausgehen. Eph. 2:8: “not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” “Of him” overthrows all the wisdom, power, etc., of the world at one blow. If any of the Corinthians are admiring these spurious values they must now feel ashamed. They can import nothing that is admirable or valuable from the world. God alone is the source and the cause of all that they really are in Christ Jesus.

Paul writes ὑμεῖς, “you,” which gives this word some emphasis, but he does not place it first in the sentence and make it contrast with the wise, great, etc., in the world. The silent contrast is between what the Corinthians now are (ὑμεῖςἐστέ) and what they once were. They are now “in Christ Jesus,” in saving union with him (he is named according to his person and his work). To be “in Christ” is a phrase that is constantly used by Paul; hence we construe: “you are in Christ.” We do not associate the phrase with the whole sentence: “of him are you” (and this) “in Christ.” “In Christ” = in union and communion with him. This union is mediated objectively by the Word, subjectively by faith. So every believer of the Word is “in Christ,” in vital, blessed connection with him.

And now there follows the wonderful description of what it really means to be “in Christ,” a description that is intended to contrast tremendously with the poor things of which the world boasts so proudly and, secondly, with the original emptiness and poverty of those whom God has chosen. Grammatically this description is a relative clause joined to “Christ Jesus”: “who,” etc. The aorist passive ἐγενήθη “became,” “was made,” has the force and the meaning of the middle ἐγένετο; the Koine coined many such passive forms and loved to use them. The sense is, of course, not passive. The tense is historical. No stress at all rests on ἡμῖν, “us.” Paul now joyfully includes himself and, in fact, all his fellow Christians.

That means that we should not refer “became” to the moment when the Corinthians were joined to Christ, i.e., when he subjectively became theirs by faith; but to the moment when Christ wrought out our redemption on the cross, then for the Corinthians, for Paul, and for all of us he “became” objectively what Paul now states. And the phrase “from God,” like “of him” (God), once more stresses the divine source over against anything that comes from “the world.” The preposition ἀπό has the thought of transition from God to us.

Are the Corinthians desiring “wisdom,” actual wisdom? In Christ they have the very highest and the most blessed wisdom that comes to them from God himself. This σοφία consists of all the gracious, heavenly, and efficacious thoughts of God that are embodied in Christ Jesus, which enlighten our souls, to which sophia there is none comparable. Paul might have stopped with this statement regarding Christ’s being made wisdom for us but he expands the idea by adding four infinite treasures that lie in Christ and are ours and once more uses four to indicate completeness.

We do not translate τεκαί “both … and”: “both righteousness and holiness,” to which pair there would be added: “and redemption.” These three would then, as an epexegesis, define “wisdom.” But this epexegesis would give “wisdom” a sudden new sense that would be contrary to the one this term has thus far had. The little τε intends to connect σοφία and δικαιοσύνη, and the two καί add the other two nouns. We note, however, that the idea of δύναμις or power, which was hitherto joined with σοφία or wisdom, is now omitted, for none of the three terms added to wisdom contains the special idea of power. When he is displaying what Christ is to us who are joined to him Paul reaches out into those glorious treasures about which the world knows nothing. We are blessed in Christ far beyond anything the world attempts. And δικαιοσύνη is the first of the three additions to wisdom.

This is the justitia imputata, that quality which is ours when God’s verdict acquits the believer for Christ’s sake. Where has the world anything to compare with that? This term is always forensic. There is a judge, a court with its bar of justice, one who stands at that bar, and a verdict pronounced by the judge, in this case a verdict of acquittal. Read Rom. 3:21–30, and see the word in C.-K.

Next is ἁγιασμός, “sanctification” in the narrow sense, since it is subsequent to righteousness in the present connection (compare v. 2) and here indicates a life of good works. Christ dwells in us, and our thoughts, words, and deeds show it. The world knows of no such inner transforming power. The very idea of “holiness” is foreign to its mind, for the essence of holiness is separation from the world and devotion unto God.

Finally ἀπολύτρωσις, which, because of its position after the preceding terms, cannot signify the original “redemption” wrought by Christ on the cross but must refer to our own final “redemption” from sin and death through Christ and our translation into glory. The world has nothing to compare with this. All men are redeemed or ransomed because Christ paid the λύτρον or price of his sacrificial blood for all of them. But only those who benefit by this redemption eventually enter heaven. They are thus the redeemed in a narrow sense. The others spurn Christ’s “redemption,” these appropriate it by faith and reach its consummation by their transfer into glory.

Nothing less than this entire blessedness of our state of salvation is made ours in Christ Jesus. It embraces earth and heaven, time and eternity. What is contained in the aorist infinitive σῶσαι used in v. 21 is here unfolded. The fact that it can be only ἐξαὑτοῦ, “of him,” (God), is surely self-evident.

1 Corinthians 1:31

31 Paul now gathers all that he has said into a single focus in the way he usually loves to do when he comes to the end of a matter. He uses a purpose clause and parallels it with the one found in v. 29. There he writes in the negative: “that no flesh should glory in God’s presence.” Here he writes the corresponding positive: that, even as it is written: He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord!

The final unit of thought into which Paul thus ties everything together and brings all to its resting point is our glorying: Let us glory, not in ourselves, but in the Lord! Paul abbreviates Jer. 9:23, 24: “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might” (note the correlation of “wisdom” and of “power” which Paul himself has used); let not the rich man glory in his riches: but let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord.” Paul retains the impressive imperative “let him glory” of the original Hebrew, although he writes a purpose clause. We may supply the subjunctive ἧ after ἵνα: “in order that it may be even as it is written,” etc., which makes the clause regular; or we may call this an anacoluthon (broken construction), one that is purposely employed by Paul. The latter view is entirely acceptable when we remember that Paul does purposely make use of an anacoluthon as a mode of expressing his thought. Paul is usually excused for employing such language on the ground that his thoughts so crowd in upon his mind that he at times breaks the construction of his sentences, but such an excuse is superficial because it fails to perceive that the anacoluthon is exactly what Paul chooses to express the desired thought. In regard to the formula of quotation, γέγραπται, perfect tense, see v. 19. We are, indeed, to glory, but in something that is far different from the glory of the world.

Does “in the Lord” refer to God or to Christ? The former is urged because “of him” in v. 30 and “in the presence of God” in v. 29 both refer to God; yet the reason for this interpretation may be the quiet support of subordinationism. On the other hand, it is urged that Christ is referred to by “the Lord” because of the emphatic phrase “in Christ Jesus” found in v. 30, and because in that verse all our spiritual blessings are connected with Christ. The question may be decided when the original of Jeremiah is consulted, for this speaks of Yahweh. To glory in the Lord means to stop all boasting and all reliance on ourselves and on anything in ourselves or produced by ourselves and with a trustful, joyful, thankful heart to sing the praises of him from whom all our spiritual blessings flow.

Summing up what Paul writes, we may say that it is the gravest and the most dangerous error to promulgate the gospel by means of the wisdom of the world, whether that be the wisdom of our present or of any previous age. For thus at least a part of the glory is withdrawn from Christ and transferred to this false wisdom. The real issue at stake in the Corinthian “wranglings” about men is clearly brought out. With all the energy at his command Paul determines to stop these disputes. All praise and all glory of men must cease, and the praise and the glory of God alone must prevail in Corinth and in the entire church.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. D. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.