1 Corinthians 2
LenskiCHAPTER II
III. The Preachers of the Wisdom of the Cross, Chapter 2
In order to draw the Corinthians still farther away from their “wranglings” (ἔριδες, 1:11) and their glorification of men or glorying in men Paul reminds them of the manner of his preaching among them when he founded their congregation. At the same time he reminds them of the result he intended to attain and did actually attain by this preaching.
1 Corinthians 2:1
1 Καί in κἀγώ attaches the new section to the previous one as it also tends in the same direction. After dwelling on the principles involved in the Corinthian contentions about men Paul now reminds the Corinthians of the contents of his preaching and of the way in which he preached when he first worked among them. And I, having come to you, brethren, came not with excellency of statement or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God.
He, indeed, brought them this blessed testimony but he made no attempt to modify it so that in such a new garb it might appeal to them. The addition of the aorist participle ἐλθών to the aorist verb ἦλθον: I “having come … came” is not intended as an intensification of the idea of Paul’s coming, for which there is no call here. In fact, the coming is subordinate to the main thought of proclaiming the testimony, and Paul might have written: “Having come, I did not proclaim,” etc. By inserting “I came” and then proceeding with “not … proclaiming” Paul is more precise and says not merely that some time after his coming, but at once, simultaneous with his coming, he preached as he did.
It is pointless to dispute whether the κατά phrase is to be construed with “came” or with “proclaiming,” for this present participle combines with the main verb to form one idea: “I came proclaiming.” The next phrase adds the norm which Paul repudiated when he was making his proclamation to the Corinthians: “not with excellency of statement or of wisdom.” These are not partitive genitives as though Paul used only a moderate and not an excessive amount of this excellency. The genitives are epexegetical or qualitative: Paul did not at all preach with an excellency that consists in λόγος or in σοφία. Any use of these means would have exalted them above the gospel, and the Corinthians might have been attracted by these means and not by the gospel.
Both λόγος and σοφία are entirely general here, they are without the article or other modifiers. They are also two separate concepts as the “or” indicates and are not combined as they were in 1:17, “wisdom of statement.” Λόγος, as used by Paul, is equivalent to the German Rede so that “excellency of statement” = eloquent and persuasive oration after the fashion of the Greek orators. Such a presentation the wisdom of the world has to offer but never the gospel. The term σοφία is, of course, worldly wisdom and philosophy.
The dative “to you” is merely incidental and lacks all emphasis. Hence there is not a contrast as though Paul avoided these means only in the case of the Corinthians although he had employed them elsewhere. The following supposition is also contradicted, namely that at Athens, where Paul had been just before he came to Corinth, he had tried this “excellency” when speaking to the philosophers and had accomplished little through its use so that he now resolved to return to his old way of preaching. Also at Athens Paul preached as he had always done, and he did not fail there; quite the contrary. Paul’s words imply rather that when he came to Corinth—and he probably had the same experience when he came to Athens—he felt a certain temptation, when speaking to these Greeks, to employ a manner of preaching that might have made a strong appeal to them, namely fine dialectical oration or striking speculative thought; but nothing of the kind was ever uttered by him.
The readings differ as to the object of “proclaiming.” We much prefer: proclaiming “the testimony of God” instead of “the mystery” (see R. V. and margin). The genitive “of God” may be subjective: God did the testifying; it is scarcely objective: the testimony that deals with God, which is too general an expression to indicate the gospel. One may regard this as a genitive of origin: the testimony God has imposed on his witnesses. Then, too, “testimony” becomes significant, for every testimony given unto us must be repeated simply as it is. It dare not be altered or embellished with strange oratory or wisdom of our own.
1 Corinthians 2:2
2 Paul continues and explains (γάρ) what he did not do: For I decided not to know anything among you save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. Yet when he is thus explaining what he decided to cast aside Paul also mentions the positive means which he determined to use. Paul intimates that he knew well enough what would probably please and easily captivate the Corinthians, being what they were. He made his decision, ἔκρινα, to use nothing whatever of this sort. He remained true to his Lord and to himself. Did he risk failure or meager results? He did not allow that to sway him.
The plea that our age demands certain modifications of the gospel captivates many today, and they do not decide as Paul did. Of course, they intend to lose nothing of the gospel but only to aid it in finding more ready and widespread acceptance among men. But such good intentions on our part reflect on the Lord’s intentions, who originally made the gospel what it is. His intentions always work out to the glory of his name, ours, even when they deviate only slightly from his, dim the glory of his name—may even darken that glory.
We may construe οὑ with ἔκρινα: “I did not decide to know a thing among you save,” etc.; or with εἰδέναι: “I decided not to know,” etc. There is little difference in force. In was Paul’s decision to know only Christ crucified. Yet εἰδέναι, “to know,” indicates that even in his own mind and not merely in his presentation Paul decided to know only Christ. This he decided in spite of the fact that the crucified Christ must of necessity be unpalatable to both Greeks and Jews in Corinth. The emphasis is on the participle ἐσταυρομένον; the cross always offends.
The perfect participle states the past fact of the crucifixion and then the enduring effect of that fact: Christ, once crucified, is such forever. It is important to note that “Christ and him the one crucified” is in no way restrictive as though Paul presented only a portion of the gospel in Corinth and omitted other portions. Nor does Paul say: “I decided to use only the center of the gospel and to leave out the rest.” “Jesus Christ as the one crucified” is the perfect summary of the entire gospel; whatever is not comprised in this summary is not gospel, not gospel in any sense.
Paul offers no excuse for preachers who desire to eliminate certain teachings of the gospel on the plea that they can thus reach and attract more people than if they insisted also on these teachings. Paul intends to omit, even in his own mind, any addition to the gospel, any admixture, any sugar-coating of it by human, worldly wisdom. He states the same truth in Gal. 3:1: “before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified.” “Crucified” means blood, death, sacrifice, atonement, substitution, reconciliation as the Scriptures show in full detail. The cross is reduced to a merely human level when, through human statement and wisdom, it is made to mean only martyrdom for one’s convictions or is regarded as a mere symbol of love.
1 Corinthians 2:3
3 Paul once more draws attention to his own person: And I in weakness and in fear and in much trembling got face to face with you. The context does not suggest that Paul intends to contrast himself with other preachers who may feel more cheerful than he. This second “I” offers only additional information regarding the first “I.” Verses 1 and 2 show that Paul discarded λόγος and σοφία and came only with the cross. Now we learn that even beyond that there was no personal impressiveness about Paul when he began his work in Corinth. The three phrases are placed before the verb for the sake of emphasis. The aorist ἐγενόμηνπρὸςὑμᾶς does not mean: “I was with you,” which would take in the entire time of Paul’s stay in Corinth; or: “I came to you,” which Paul has already said in v. 1 with the correct verb ἦλθον.
This is the German: Ich geriet bei euch, and πρός is reciprocal (Paul facing the Corinthians, and they him). Acts 18:9–11 sheds the only light we have on the condition into which Paul got when he arrived in Corinth to begin his work there. From this passage we learn that God cheered Paul by means of a vision at night, from which fact it is fair to conclude that he needed to be cheered. The surmise that Paul was thoroughly discouraged by failure in Athens, whence he had just come, does not rest on facts.
“Weakness” may well refer to poor physical condition or sickness. We should rid ourselves of the idea that Paul was always in robust health and was always physically fit. Those who would make him an epileptic have yet to prove their supposition. A man who was afflicted with this disease cannot use his brain as Paul constantly used his when he was composing his letters. The aorist reports a weakness that occurred only at this one time. A man who labored as intensely as Paul did, who traveled under the hardship of those days and endured in mind and in body what Paul bore, may well report that at one very inconvenient time, just when he began work in an important place and wished he were quite fit, he found himself “in (bodily) weakness.”
While Paul merely parallels the three phrases, the latter two, “in fear and in much trembling,” naturally go together as referring to his mental condition, which was a reaction to the physical. Fear and trembling refer, of course, not to concern for his own person, but for the work and its success in Corinth. The phrase πρὸςὑμᾶς suggests Paul’s facing the Corinthians in his poor condition; Robertson calls πρός the face-to-face preposition. Run down as he was, he was a poor figure to come πρός, face to face with people who admired oratory and philosophic presentation. Paul feared and trembled that his condition might work a prejudice against the blessed message he had to bring.
1 Corinthians 2:4
4 Paul succeeded in spite of his poor condition for the very reason that he threw aside mere human aids and relied on the divine. God once more showed that he had chosen for himself “the things that are accounted nothing,” yea, “the things that are not.” And my statement and my preaching (were) not in persuasive words of wisdom but in demonstration of the Spirit and power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
These are the highly significant facts which Paul bids the Corinthians remember. Paul uses two terms to describe the message he brought to Corinth: “my statement and my preaching,” both of which include the substance and the form of its presentation. The repetition is for the sake of emphasis, and λόγος is broader than κήρυγμα which means any “statement” Paul made of the gospel plus the public “proclamation” he made in the synagogue. No verb is needed in the Greek. The thing that he spoke (λόγος), the thing that he announced as a herald (κήρυγμα) was devoid of “persuasive words of wisdom.” The entire sphere (ἐν) indicates what Paul avoided. He used no philosophic terms, categories of thought, or reasonings that were calculated to captivate his hearers and to persuade their minds to assent.
Paul remained in an entirely different sphere (ἐν), “in the demonstration of the Spirit and power.” The noun ἀπόδειξις is found nowhere else in the New Testament and denotes proof or demonstration of some proposition or of some claim or fact. The genitives can scarcely be subjective: proof offered by the Spirit and power; they are objective: proof demonstrating that the Spirit and power are present. Πνεύματοςκαίδυνάμεως are closely combined as forming a kind of unit, the latter is even without the article. There is no spiritual power—and none other is here referred to—apart from the Holy Spirit. And both are always connected with the λόγος and the κήρυγμα of the gospel. At no time and in no true presentation and for no hearer are the gospel λόγος and κήρυγμα ever minus the Holy Spirit and the saving power of his grace. The Corinthians thus experienced the testimonium Spiritus sancti.
Some, indeed, resisted, but a goodly number were brought to faith and to a new life. It goes without saying that no “persuasive words” in the employment of human “wisdom” (the genitive is subjective) could have produced such a result.
1 Corinthians 2:5
5 While the purpose clause that now follows refers to v. 4, it really includes all that is stated in v. 1–4. To think that Paul expresses merely his own purpose is only a small part of the truth. Back of Paul’s is God’s purpose. It is he who wants our faith grounded on the true foundation: not “wisdom of men” but “power of God.” Instead of connecting the negative particle μή with ἵνα, “lest,” Paul connects it with the verb μὴἧ, “may not be.” The effect of this construction is to make the statement regarding human wisdom more weighty and independent: “may not be in the sphere of men’s wisdom,” to which for the sake of completeness there is added: “but in the sphere of God’s power.” This manner of stating the thought reflects the trouble found in Corinth where so many are inclined to rank the human too highly. “To be in,” εἶναιἐν, may, of course, refer to locality, but Paul constantly uses it with reference to a vital inner union and communion, the essence of which is faith, “may be in,” i.e., in union with.
The plural “men’s” wisdom deserves notice as a variant for “the wisdom of the world,” 1:20. This plural denotes many men, and not only many as found in one generation but in successive generations. Their “wisdom” is not constant by any means, it changes completely from age to age. What a sorry thing when any man’s confidence and trust (πίστις) in religious things is joined only (ἐν) to “men’s wisdom” which changes ceaselessly because each new generation finds all manner of unreality, untruth, and falseness in the wisdom of the generations that have preceded. Such a “faith” would be disastrous. To found it on something that can never change because it is not the product of changing “men,” ἄνθρωποι, “human beings,” but of “God,” that is safe, and that alone.
Paul might write in God’s “wisdom” but writes in God’s “power,” for the wisdom of God is not like that of men, only an intellectual product. Every thought of God is reality and thus power, a power that always and everywhere and to all eternity asserts itself and triumphs. Paul writes “power” but in the sense of 1:24: Christ crucified, “the power of God.” This power of changeless grace is to be the basis of our faith. In order to realize this divine purpose (ἵνα) Paul preached as he did in Corinth and throughout his work. And this purpose was achieved in Corinth.
1 Corinthians 2:6
6 Paul has thus far exposed the vacuity of human wisdom. The stress is on this negative feature. Christ crucified appears to the world as foolishness. Yet this foolishness actually saves (σῶσαι, aorist, 1:21); this is a result which no human wisdom can bring to pass. Only incidentally, when he is exposing human wisdom, does Paul mention the fact that the foolishness of the cross is wisdom (1:24, 30). Now Paul develops the thought that the gospel is in reality the only genuine wisdom. Do the Corinthians want wisdom? Well, here it is, the one supreme wisdom in the whole universe!
Wisdom, now, we are speaking among those perfected, yet not the wisdom of this world age, nor of the rulers of this world age who are coming to nought.
“Wisdom” is placed emphatically forward, it is the theme of this grand paragraph. The particle δέ is both continuative and adversative. Whereas Paul has just written two ἐγώ he now writes λαλοῦμεν, “we are speaking,” but he does not employ ἡμεῖς; and this unemphatic “we” runs through this section. It is not a majestic plural, for no writer uses such a plural immediately after he has employed two emphatic “I.” Paul is using a true plural which includes all those who preach the gospel properly without, however, referring to any who may be preaching it faultily. And he uses λαλεῖν (not λέγειν) because the former means only to speak or give utterance. The real preachers of the gospel are only a voice through which God conveys the gospel to men. What this “wisdom” is to which they lend voice will now become clear.
There is much discussion in regard to ἐντοῖςτελείοις, “among the perfected,” although this phrase intends simply to designate the auditors among whom this speaking is done, namely those who have apprehended Christ. The view that οἱτέλειοι designates the more mature Christians as distinguished from the νήπιοι or babes mentioned in 3:1, has the implication that Paul speaks something else to these babes, something that is not “God’s wisdom.” What could that be? The effort is also made to distinguish between that which is preached to the babes, namely only the elementary parts of the gospel, and that which is preached to the τέλειοι, namely the “wisdom” of the deeper mysteries of Christianity. But this view that “wisdom” includes only the difficult things in the gospel is contrary to all that Paul has already said in regard to this “wisdom” when he calls Christ crucified “the wisdom of God,” 1:24. All attempts to name the deeper things which constitute this “wisdom” for the more advanced Christians offer matter that is foreign to Paul’s words and thought. The simple fact remains that the entire gospel in all its parts is σοφία, including every part that anyone may label elementary.
The τέλειος is one who has reached the τέλος or goal. The context invariably determines the goal referred to and the sense in which the term is employed. The present context speaks of only two classes of people: such as accept the gospel in faith and such as spurn the gospel and prefer their own wisdom. No reference has been made to undeveloped Christians. The fact that Paul speaks of such in the next chapter does not give a special meaning to τέλειος as it is employed in this chapter. The τέλειοι are those who have reached Christ crucified as the goal. We have no good English equivalent for this Greek word. “The perfect” is rather misleading; “those perfected” is perhaps as well as we can do although also this translation is inadequate.
We now see why Paul uses the present tense λαλοῦμεν, “we go on speaking” wisdom. Whereas v. 1 and 3 employ historical aorists when referring to the past, to the time when Paul first preached in Corinth, this present tense mentions what Paul and his helpers do as a regular thing when they speak among believers who have come to apprehend Christ. All of their preaching is really “wisdom,” true wisdom and nothing less. No contrast is implied as though they speak something else among unbelievers. Since the stress of the entire sentence is on “wisdom,” there is no contrast in the τέλειοι except the natural one, that these will appreciate what Paul and others thus preach as “wisdom” while, of course, the rest, because of their unbelief, will not admit that the cross is “wisdom”; they call it folly.
Paul at once and in a strong way differentiates this divine wisdom from the other kind: “yet not the wisdom of this world age,” the genitive characterizes the quality. On “world age” see 1:20. This αἰών or “age” (era) must end. Then what about its “wisdom”? Nor can a stream ever rise higher than its source. More specifically and referring to the reppresentatives of this transient wisdom, Paul qualifies it as belonging to “the rulers of this world age,” those who are foremost and leaders of others because of their learning, their power, or their birth, 1:20, 26.
The fact that Paul includes political rulers and their spurious religious wisdom we shall see in a moment when we consider v. 8. “Already in this world one card castle of human wisdom after another tumbles down, and finally the sentence of destruction that is uttered against all worldly things will be executed in the judgment to come.” Besser. This thought is expressed in the qualitative genitive τῶνκαταργουμένων (see 1:28), “who are coming to nought,” really, “abolishing themselves” however proudly they now strut about. Every word and every act of theirs are only another step forward on this road. Its end is indicated in καταργήσῃ, 15:24, “when he shall have abolished.” People “who are abolishing themselves” have a poor “wisdom” to offer, one that would induce others also to abolish themselves.
1 Corinthians 2:7
7 No; this is not the kind of wisdom Paul and his helpers offer to believers; “on the contrary,” ἀλλά, it is the very opposite. The negative description is now supplemented by the positive: on the contrary, we are speaking God’s wisdom in mystery, the one that has been hidden, which God did foreordain before the world ages unto our glory.
Paul repeats: “we are speaking God’s wisdom” and now adds the qualitative genitive “God’s” in order to distinguish this wisdom from the spurious “wisdom of this world age.” In this genitive “God’s” which we call qualitative there lies much more, namely origin and contents as well as nature. Two types of wisdom compete for men’s souls. Paul and his colaborers offer the divine. Which do the Corinthian believers want?
There is no difficulty “in mystery” which modifies “wisdom.” R. 589 construes it with the verb: “we speak in the form of mystery,” but we question that ἐν ever means “in the form of.” But apart from that if something is “in the form of,” it is “wisdom.” Wisdom may have a form; the verb “we are speaking” can have no form. Entire phrases, especially those with ἐν, very frequently modify nouns or even pronouns. In the present instance the ἐν phrase is rather remotely removed from the verb. Luther translates: Wir reden von der heimlichen Weisheit Gottes, which is substantially correct although it converts the phrase into an adjective. No article is found with “mystery,” hence the quality of the noun is stressed: this wisdom is connected with mystery. The article would point to some special mystery, one that is known in this case; none such exists in this instance.
The fact that this is a wisdom that is connected with mystery is at once explained, first by adding a participle with the article attributively and then by adding two relative clauses. “That hath been hidden,” τὴνἀποκεκρυμμένην, is passive with God as the agent, and the tense is perfect: God hid this wisdom and it still bears this character; and for this reason it is certainly connected with mystery. This mystery goes back to eternity, to a time prior to the ages or eons which constitute the course of time for the world. Then God προώρισεν, fixed and ordained in advance, this σοφία. This is the verb that is regularly employed to designate God’s act of foreordaining or predestinating. Before man was formed, before the first phosphor light of his little wisdom began to glow, God’s wisdom was complete, God’s decision was fixed as to the object and as to the result of that wisdom.
This aorist προώρισεν, which takes us back into eternity, recalls the thrice repeated ἐξελέξατο, also aorist, found in 1:27, 28. While neither of these terms is here connected with persons, the very election and predestination of the gospel principles and contents involves also persons, in particular the elect. Paul indicates as much with the phrase “for our glory.” This δόξα is the final goal to which God determined to bring us, that blessed state in which we shall see the Lord of glory as he is and shall be made like unto him. What, pray, is all human wisdom compared with this wisdom of God’s grace, which reaches from eternity to eternity, which is full of divine, spiritual power to lift us sinners from sin, corruption, and death to everlasting glory?
1 Corinthians 2:8
8 No wonder Paul can add a second relative clause to describe this wisdom: which not one of the rulers of this world age has known, for if they had known it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. Not only is it not theirs to begin with, originating, as it did, far higher and far earlier than theirs and sweeping on its sublime course far above their puny thoughts; but not one of them, rulers though they are in this world age, even “hath known” it, hath realized it in the past or at any time since and thus made it his own intellectually and spiritually when it was brought to him by God. The verb γινώσκειν is used with reference to the true apprehension and actual realization.
A striking and a convincing proof is at once added with γάρ: “for if they had known,” etc. This is a regular conditional sentence that expresses a past unreality: εἰ with an aorist in the protasis and an aorist with ἄν in the apodosis: if they had known (but they did not know) they would not have crucified (but they did crucify). The crucifixion of Christ is the final demonstration of the fact that the world’s highest representatives did not and do not know God’s wisdom. The Jewish and the Roman political leaders are here referred to, but in Christ’s time the former were also the ecclesiastical rulers. They even had the Old Testament revelation to give them knowledge. Yet they did not know.
All their guilty and fatal ignorance comes to the surface in the crucifixion of Christ, John 18:38; Luke 23:34; Acts 3:17; 13:17. The Jewish and the Gentile authorities of Christ’s day are typical in this respect. “World is world; wherever the world lets out its real self in its leaders, there Christ is killed, in Jerusalem and in Rome, everywhere, always.” Besser.
Note the tremendous contrast between “crucify” and “the Lord of glory.” The one represents the deepest disgrace, the other the highest exaltation and majesty. The person is here designated according to his divine nature (Lord of glory) while the thing predicated of him belongs to his human nature (crucified). Theologically speaking, we here have the Communicatio Idiomatum (the Communication of Attributes), and this is an instance that belongs to the first group, the genus idiomaticum. To this group belong all the Bible statements which predicate of the person of Christ, no matter how it is designated (with a divine, a human, or a merely personal or official name), either human or divine attributes, acts, etc. (or both combined). Zwingli disposes of these Bible statements by inventing a special figure for them, his allœosis, a mere verbal change. Since such a figure of speech is unknown to rhetoric, others seek to improve on Zwingli by calling this synecdoche: the whole placed for the part; in the present instance the whole person whereas only his humanity is meant.
This is no better. In either case we should have only mere words that do not mean what they really say.
Luther: “Zwingli calls that an allœosis when something is said of the divinity of Christ which really belongs to the humanity, or vice versa. As Luke 24:26: ‘Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?’ Here Zwingli juggles, asserting that the word Christ is understood of the human nature. Beware, beware, I say, of the allœosis! For it is a devil’s mask, for at last it manufactures such a Christ after whom I certainly would not be a Christian; namely, that henceforth Christ should be no more and do no more with his sufferings and life than any other mere saint. For if I believe this that only the human nature has suffered for me, then Christ is to me a poor Savior, then he himself needs a Savior. In a word, it is unspeakable what the devil seeks with the allœosis… If the old weather witch, Dame Reason, the grandmother of the allœosis, would say, ‘Yea, divinity cannot suffer or die’; you shall reply, ‘That is true’; yet, because in Christ divinity and humanity are one person, Scripture, on account of this personal union, ascribes also to divinity everything that happens to the humanity, and vice versa.
And it is so in reality; for you must certainly answer this, that the person (meaning Christ) suffers and dies. Now the person is true God; therefore it is rightly said: ‘The Son of God suffers.’ For although the one part (to speak thus), namely the divinity, does not suffer, yet the person, which is God, suffers in the other part, namely in his humanity; for in truth God’s Son has been crucified for us, that is, the person which is God. For the person, the person, I say was crucified according to the humanity.” C. Tr. 1027, etc., F. C. VIII, 39.
“The Lord of glory” is the Son of God who possesses all the divine attributes, the sum of which the Scriptures call his δόξα or “glory,” for they all shine with heavenly splendor. By his incarnation this Lord of glory assumed our human nature. He also entered a state of lowliness, “he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross,” Phil. 2:8. He suffered crucifixion in his human nature; yet it was he that suffered this. His person is one, forever undivided.
1 Corinthians 2:9
9 The wisdom which Paul and others are now speaking, this wisdom which is connected with mystery, of which the world rulers had no inkling as is evidenced by their putting Christ to the cross, Paul now states by means of a quotation: but as it has been written:
What eye saw not, and ear heard not,
And into the heart of man entered not,
Whatever God made ready for them that love him.
This is the wisdom which Paul and the other apostles speak, and it is plain that it is combined with mystery. As regards the construction, καθώς depends on λαλοῦμεν: “we speak as it has been written.” The quotation is the remote object of λαλοῦμεν: “we speak … what eye saw not,” etc. And ἀλλά is parallel to the ἀλλά occurring in v. 7, both adversatives contrast the divine mystery wisdom with that of the world and with the blindness of the world rulers. The effort to make v. 9 the object of the ἐκάλυψεν occurring in v. 10: “what eye saw not, etc… to us did God reveal,” etc., breaks down at several points. For if we construe: “as it is written … God did reveal,” the quotation would have to state that God made this revelation, and yet the quotation which Paul uses states nothing of the kind. Moreover, ἀλλά, “on the contrary,” refers to something negative that precedes and introduces the opposite of that negative; and the quotation does exactly that. In the same way καθώς points backward and not forward.
Since the days of Clement of Rome who lived forty years after Paul wrote this letter to the Corinthians the source of Paul’s quotation has been in dispute. As far as some known or some unknown apocryphal source is concerned, the fact is now established that no New Testament writer ever quotes from apocryphal sources, and the formula: “even as it has been written,” always introduces inspired canonical utterances. It would be strange to find that Paul makes an exception in this instance. We know, too, that Paul often quotes freely and also combines Old Testament sayings. His reason is always evident: he wishes to stress certain expressions that are found in the passages which he quotes; these he conserves while the rest, about which he is unconcerned, is formulated to fit the general connection in which he writes. We ourselves exercise the same liberty.
Bearing these facts in mind, we shall have no difficulty in this case. Paul uses Isa. 64:4 and Isa. 65:17 for the second line. When he uses expressions from these two passages Paul’s evident object is to show the mystery character of the wisdom which he and others are preaching. The expressions he thus desires are especially three: the one regarding the eye that does not see, the one regarding the ear that does not hear, and the one regarding the heart that does not even conceive the thought. This psychological arrangement and progression: eye, ear, heart, is Paul’s own. Since he found no single Old Testament passage that contained these three, he combines two such passages freely and thus secures the three. The object which is thus not perceived by eye, ear, and heart Paul restates from Isa. 64:4 by using the prophet’s thought quite exactly.
No heathen people ever conceived a God who would actually take care of those who placed their reliance on him. The idea that this God of Israel could be such a God never entered their minds. Delitzsch translates: “From ancient time on no one has heard, has perceived, no eye has seen a God except thee, who acts for him that waits on him.” Then he comments: “No ear, no eye, has ever come to perceive the existence of a God who acts like Jehovah, i.e., effectually takes the part of those who rest their hope on him.” August Pieper in his excellent Jesaias II translates and comments in the same way: “The enemies believe in no intervention of the gods or of one god in behalf of a definite nation. From of old they have never heard of such a thing or actually seen it, no eye has ever beheld the like. Therefore they are not afraid but are quite assured in their violation of Israel that they have nothing of this kind to fear from the God also of this people although the prophets and teachers of Israel speak of it. But the Lord is, indeed, an actual exception among the gods. He is, in fact, a God who interferes for those who wait on him.”
From Isa. 65:17, Paul desires only the expression: “come upon the heart,” A. V. margin, which he renders into Greek: “entered not into the heart of man,” and preserves as much as possible the Hebrew idiom which uses “heart.” The object that is not perceived by eye, ear, and heart is: “what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him,” A. V., or more literally: God, “who acts for him that waits on him.” Paul restates this but gives the same sense and thus changes the final dative. The LXX has the plural: “for them that await mercy.” Paul retains this plural when he writes: “for them that love him.” But, as in other places in his letters when divine benefits are mentioned, the recipients of these benefits are designated as those that love God. Rom. 8:28: “To them that love God all things work together for good.”
The quotation, in the formulation which Paul employs, finds such favor that from early days onward we meet it in all manner of connections. It is often used with reference to heaven and with reference to the blessedness that awaits us in the life to come. This use is legitimate, indeed, although it narrows the sense originally intended by Paul. All that God offers us in the gospel, all that he has prepared for us, and all he does for us in Christ Jesus, not only the glory of the joy in heaven, is contained in the wisdom that Paul and his helpers preach to us to make us wise unto salvation. All of it not even the foremost among men, apart from God, ever perceived or conceived; it was all “hidden in mystery.” God alone revealed it in the gospel and now reveals it to us by means of the gospel.
The “heart” is conceived as the organ of thought and as such is paralleled with the senses, “eye and ear.” “To come upon (ἐπί) the heart” is idiomatic for our “entering the heart,” conceiving in the mind. Some prefer the reading ἅ instead of ὅσα in the third line; “things which,” instead of “as many as,” taking their number together. The aorist ἡτοίμασεν is probably historical. We may refer it back to eternity and then think of the one eternal act of making ready; or, regarding the aorist as constative, we may think of the preparation made during the entire Old Testament time. If we wish to specify what things God thus made ready we shall not go amiss if we mention pardon, sonship, peace, etc., and finally everlasting glory in Christ Jesus.
1 Corinthians 2:10
10 But to us God made revelation through the Spirit, for the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.
The emphatic ἡμῖν, “to us,” does not refer to Christians in general but resumes the silent “we” of the two λαλοῦμεν, “we speak,” occurring in v. 6 and 7, namely the apostles who are commissioned to speak this wisdom and to make it known. As God originally hid this wisdom in mystery, v. 7, so in due time he and he alone revealed it. In the Greek: “God made revelation” or “revealed” needs no object, the reader at once understands what was thus revealed. After stating to whom God made this wondrous revelation Paul states the medium which God employed: “through the Spirit,” the third person of the Godhead. Both the Revelator and the Medium are thus far above anything that transmits human wisdom. Paul here sets aside the view of a religious evolution among the Jews which at last resulted in Christianity. God discarded absolutely all human religious wisdom and in his “revelation” set up something that was entirely new and transcendently superior.
The statement that this revelation was made “through the Spirit” takes us into the profundities of the Godhead itself and assigns a reason for it: “for the Spirit searcheth all things,” etc. There is, of course, no thought here of setting the Spirit over against the other two persons of the Godhead as if he alone searches all things. All we know is what Paul states here: the Spirit, who is one in essence with the Father and the Son, exercises this divine function. It is best not to attempt to follow this thought any farther. All we can add is that in the economy of grace it is the Spirit’s office to convey God’s revelation to us.
The verb “to search” that is used with reference to the Spirit cannot mean, as it does in our case, a process of investigation such as going from one thing to another, putting two and two together, and thus making one discovery after another. The tense is the timeless present. In one timeless act the Spirit sounds the absolute depth of “all things,” πάντα (not merely τὰπάντα, all that God created and that now exists) in heaven and in earth, millions of them being beyond the human mind. They include “even the deep things of God,” his essence and his attributes as well as his thoughts, his purposes, his plans, his providences in regard to us, etc. Rom. 11:33. And in these “deep things” we may well include the cross of Christ which involves the Holy Trinity itself, the incarnation, the union of the two natures in Christ, etc. Although we know something about these things through the Spirit’s revelation, their inner profundities are still “in mystery” to our minds.
1 Corinthians 2:11
11 To aid us at least a little in our efforts to apprehend what is too high for our finite minds Paul introduces an analogy. For who knows of men in general the things of some particular man save the spirit of that particular man that is in him? Even so the things of God no one has known save the Spirit of God.
The inner feelings, the motives, the thoughts, and the volitions of any individual man (τοῦἀνθρώπου, note the individualizing article) only the spirit of the individual man (again τοῦἀνθρώπου) knows. Who else can know them even though he belong to men in general (ἀνθρώπων, partitive genitive)? They are hidden from him, they belong to another whom he sees only from the outside, into whose spirit he cannot penetrate. When the Scriptures distinguish the πνεῦμα from the ψυχή of man, the πνεῦμα or “spirit” is the real seat of the ego, the latter only the soul life which animates his body. In this sense Paul says that only “the spirit,” the real ego of that particular man, knows the real things that center in himself. This is true also with respect to God.
The analogy is adequate only in regard to the one point stressed, for there is an obvious difference between man’s spirit and the Spirit of God. Man’s πνεῦμα is “in him,” ἐναὑτῷ, was put there when God created man and breathed his breath into man and made him a spirit ego. No counterpart to this exists in God, the essence of whose Spirit is identical (ὁμοούσιος) with that of the Father and of the Son. We cannot extend Paul’s analogy beyond the one point indicated lest we mislead ourselves in regard to God. As man’s spirit alone knows what is in himself, thus (οὕτω) God’s Spirit alone knows what is in God, i.e., “the things of God,” all of them, those that are utterly unsearchable to us and those that are included in his love, grace, purposes, and plans for us, with which latter Paul is here concerned. The perfect ἔγνωκεν = has known from eternity and thus ever knows and uses this human tense with reference to a timeless divine act.
Thus in some tiny fashion Paul explains (γάρ) to us why the Spirit is God’s divine medium for revelation to us. Human wisdom needs no such explanation of the medium of its transmission.
1 Corinthians 2:12
12 Having thus made plain the great Revelator and the infinite profundity of his knowledge, Paul continues with the revelatory act mentioned in v. 10: “To us he made revelation.” Once more we have the emphatic pronoun ἡμεῖς, “we,” which continues through v. 13. Now we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God in order that we might know the things graciously granted us by God.
How do “we,” the apostles, get the divine wisdom which we proclaim to God’s people? Objectively, of course, by means of a revelation which God makes to us. But more must be said. How is this revelation lodged in us subjectively so that we may possess it subjectively and thus become channels for its transmission? The apostles do not receive the Spirit’s revelation like phonographic records which know nothing of that which is impressed upon them. Paul has quite significantly referred to the spirit of each man and has stated how that spirit knows what pertains to that man. Regarding this subjective side Paul tells his readers: “We received not the spirit of the world but the spirit which is from God,” etc.
The term πνεῦμα signifies animus, that which constitutes the specific character of a man, i.e., of the ego that is in him. The world’s spirit is thus that which animates the world, lends its distinctive character to the world. It is what makes the world “world.” Because of this its spirit the world ever loves its spurious wisdom. We see this spirit fully illustrated in the world’s leaders who crucified Christ. This “spirit of the world” is not the faculty of reason created in man although this “spirit” frightfully abuses also this faculty just as it abuses τὰμέλη, the members of the body, and all other possessions. This “spirit” is “received”; men get it from the world by birth and by every kind of contact.
Its characteristic mark is the fact that it is “of the world,” τοῦκόσμου, qualitative genitive. As long as a man has this “spirit” he is unfit to receive the Spirit’s revelation, v. 14, he despises the wisdom of God.
The apostles received the very opposite kind of “spirit” or animus: “the spirit that is from God.” Our versions are careful to print “spirit” without a capital letter. And Paul is careful not to write “the spirit of God” although he writes “the spirit of the world,” but “the spirit from God,”τὸπνεῦματὸἐκτοῦΘεοῦ, the one that is derived from God, ἐκ denoting source. This is the spirit of true faith and trust toward God, the spirit of humility and love, the opposite of the spirit of “the rulers of this world age,” v. 6. How the apostles “received” this new spirit Paul is not concerned to state, he registers only the fact with a decided historical aorist. The Corinthians know the life’s history of Paul and of the Twelve. Thus subjectively God prepared the apostles to become recipients of his revelation so that they might transmit it. God could use only men of this type, humble though they were; he could employ absolutely none of the world rulers, powerful and great though they seemed to be.
From God the apostles received this subjective preparation “in order that they might know the things graciously granted them by God.” These are the things that comprise “the wisdom” of which Paul is speaking, the things which eye saw not, etc. The agent who “graciously granted” and gave these things to the apostles is indicated in the regular way: “God” and ὑπό with the genitive. The apostles were to “know” these things. This is the subjective side of the objective divine act of revelation. The apostles are to possess these blessed things personally for themselves although God’s main purpose is that, by themselves apprehending these things, the apostles might convey them to others.
The context indicates that Paul is speaking about the gospel, for the transmission of which to men generally the apostles (ἡμεῖς) were the divinely chosen human instruments. When “we” is referred to believers in general, and when χαρισθέντα is thus taken to refer to the effects of the gospel in our hearts, as well as when this participle is restricted to the future blessings of the saints in heaven, the thread of Paul’s instruction is broken.
1 Corinthians 2:13
13 This is evidenced also by the following. In v. 6 and 7 Paul asserts: “We speak wisdom … we speak God’s wisdom.” He then adds important explanations as to how the apostles get this wisdom objectively by revelation and subjectively by reception into their minds and hearts. Now Paul concludes with the same λαλοῦμεν, “we speak,” and once more shows what he and his fellow apostles speak and adds a statement in regard to the character of the very words they employ when they are thus speaking. Which things also we speak, not in words taught of man’s wisdom, but in those taught of the Spirit, combining with spiritual words spiritual things.
The relative ἅ resumes “the things graciously granted by God,” the entire sum of the divinely granted wisdom, all that God revealed to the apostles in the gospel. For the third time Paul says “we speak,” λαλοῦμεν, these things: we are engaged in carrying out our apostolic command to teach these things to all nations and to the church that has begun to receive them. Paul is doing this very thing when he is now writing to the Corinthians. In fact, the apostles still teach us to this very day through their written word.
The very “words” which the apostles employ in their divinely commissioned speaking are now described, first by means of a negative and secondly by means of a positive statement. “Not in words taught by man’s wisdom” declares that not even in regard to the “words” is God’s wisdom dependent on the world’s wisdom. Not even the λόγοι of the latter are exalted enough to serve for uttering the former. The philosophers, the dialecticians, and the rhetoricians of the world created and employed many concepts or “thought words” (λόγοι) to express their worldly reasoning, but the apostles did not adopt them for their utterance of the divine wisdom. They could not, for these terms and expressions would not be adequate for what the apostles had to convey. The genitive taught “by human wisdom” really expresses an ablative idea, R. 504, and this suggests the great teachers of those days and the disciples who adopted their reasoning.
Here is Paul’s answer to the modern commentators who make efforts to trace many of the terms and expressions found in Paul’s letters to ancient apocalyptic or to Hellenistic philosophical sources. Their results are negligible. No gospel thought wears a dress of pagan or pseudo-Jewish terms. The non-Christian world of today also has learned teachers who wield a great influence. Because they are animated by “the spirit of the world,” v. 12, their logoi are valueless for God’s wisdom. It is wasted effort to shape the wisdom of the gospel so that it will fit these foreign forms of thought and language.
One cannot, for instance, rewrite Genesis 1 and 2 in the language of the evolutionary hypothesis. The modernists of today regard the Scriptures as wisdom of the world and then, because the Scriptures are old, proceed to do with them as they do with the old philosophies of the world: they discard such “categories of thought” (as they call them) as are no longer modern in their opinion, such as our age, they say, has outgrown.
“On the contrary,” Paul writes, “we speak in words taught by the Spirit.” The very words which the apostles speak are taught them by the Spirit. He is their teacher even as to the “words.” This is proof positive for Verbal Inspiration which is taught throughout the Scriptures and is actually and factually apparent in the Scriptures. The Spirit is the teacher of the logoi in regard to all that the apostles spoke and hence also in regard to all of the gospel which they wrote, for the two are identical.
This view has been called “the mechanical theory of Inspiration,” which degrades the sacred penmen into mere automatons and machines; it is also called “the dictation theory.” The diversity of style manifested by the individual writers of the sacred books has been adduced to overthrow Verbal Inspiration. But Paul is here stating a fact. To call it a “theory” is incorrect. A fact cannot be overthrown, a theory is easily upset. Paul says: We (apostles) were taught the words by the Spirit (ablative, R. 576). The Spirit is the greatest teacher in the universe.
His teaching of the logoi of inspired apostolic utterance is no more mechanical than his teaching of the contents of these words, for the two invariably go together, and we today teach truth only by means of words that are fit to convey that truth, and in no other way. The Spirit’s teaching, the most perfect in the world, is the very highest type of spiritual operation. The very fact that the Spirit used each writer with his fund of words and his personal style when recording the gospel shows that everything mechanical was removed from this teaching of the Spirit. If he had compelled all of the writers to use the same fund of words and the same style, we might harbor the suspicion that he proceeded mechanically, and only then, and even then we might be mistaken. Amid all the variety that resulted from the dynamic use which the divine Master Teacher made of the different writers the one astounding fact stands out: not a single writer utters a false note, uses one. false word or phrase, or contradicts with a single statement expressed in his style what another holy writer expresses in a different style. If this it not Verbal Inspiration—and there is no other—then what, pray, shall it be called?
There is a beautiful paronomasia in Πνεύματος and πνευματικοῖςπνευματικά. The adverb πνευματικῶς instead of the dative has insufficient attestation although Luther so translates: und richten geistliche Sachen geistlich. Grammatically and exegetically πνευματικοῖς can refer only to λόγοις and to ἐνδιδακτικοῖς (sc. λόγοις) Πνεύματος. The neuter plural πνευματικά likewise refers to the neuter plural relative ἅ at the beginning of v. 13. The things which the apostles speak are “spiritual things,” πνευματικά, and they speak them in connection with “spiritual words,” πνευματικοῖς (sc. λόγοις).
The participle συγκρίνοντες = zusammensichten, to combine with discrimination, to separate from other matter and to combine anew, or simply to combine. In a terse way Paul thus sums up what he has said at greater length: as a result of using words taught them by the Spirit himself and not those gained from other sources he and his fellow apostles combine only spiritual words with the spiritual things they preach. Both the spiritual things and the spiritual words that convey them emanate equally from the Spirit, and the apostles combine the two accordingly. This is Paul’s definition of Verbal Inspiration. Note that λόγοι, Worte, is the proper term in this connection and not ῥήματα, Woerter. We also heed Besser’s admonition not to treat spiritual things in words of human wisdom as though they ever needed such foreign dress. The rags of our own wisdom would only desecrate the divine truth which God clothes in royal apparel.
Our English versions regard both πνευματικοῖς and πνευματικά as neuter: “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (sc. things). Why Paul should make such a statement is an unanswered question. After emphasizing, as he does, the logoi or “words” which he and his fellow apostles use, how can he then, when he should clinch what he says about the logoi, suddenly veer off in another direction? The English marginal translation is no better: “interpreting spiritual things to spiritual men.” Nothing is said about “men” in the context. If Paul refers to “men” in a context where only “words” have been considered he should insert the word “men.” Moreover, this rendering gives the participle the highly unusual sense of “interpreting” which is found only in the LXX of Gen. 40:8. The American committee of the R. V. offers the correct translation: “combining spiritual words with spiritual things.”
1 Corinthians 2:14
14 After speaking of the character of the divine wisdom and of its inspired transmission in words taught by the Spirit alone Paul presents the reception which this wisdom experienced among men. Now a natural (carnal) man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for foolishness are they to him, and he is unable to understand them because they are spiritually judged.
In the word ψυχικός we have a vivid illustration of the manner in which even the words of God’s wisdom are derived from the Spirit. Paul takes the word which the later Greek literature “constantly employed in praise of the noblest part of man” and reduces it to its proper level. Paul no longer regards ψυχικός as a word of honor but, together with σαρκικός, uses it to designate man as a being who is under the dominion of sin. Both of these terms are opposites of πνευματικός, “spiritual.” The word ψυχικός refers to a person who has only the ψυχὴζῶσα and not the πνεῦμα of divine regeneration, one, therefore, who has only the natural powers of the ψυχή and is moved and controlled only by them. Since these are altogether corrupt because of sin, every activity of his soul and his mind will be darkened accordingly. The word σαρκικός (κατὰσάρκαὤν, fleshly) refers to one who obeys the promptings of his bodily nature.
We have no adjective in English that is derived from “soul” which corresponds to the Greek ψυχικός from ψυχὴ. Hence the translation “natural man” or “unspiritual” or “carnal,” one might say “psychial,” but this is too learned.
This type of man “does not receive the things of the Spirit of God,” which Paul has described, when they are offered to him in preaching and in teaching. He does not “accept” them into his heart for what they are, precious divine truth. To a natural man they sound like μωρία (1:21), silliness, something insipid, tasteless, absurd. In his pride he may call them “fables” that are fit only for children. They clash with his own perverted ideas and desires, condemn them, and work to root them out. Hence his opposition.
The case is even worse. Paul denies not only the fact: “does not receive”; he denies also the ability: “cannot understand.” “To receive” is in a way “to understand”; yet “to understand” indicates how “to receive” is meant. For this verb γνῶναι indicates more than intellectual apprehension, it means actual realization. This verb corresponds to “the wisdom” which Paul is describing, the substance of which consists of “the things of the Spirit of God,” the entire gospel with all that it offers, its objective gifts and treasures like the saving deeds of God and its subjective blessings like life and salvation. The ψυχικός lacks the faculty and the organ for this knowing and this receiving. He has nothing beyond the organ of purely human condition, and this does not reach into the spiritual realm.
Just as a blind man cannot see the sun, so this man cannot see the radiance of the Sun of righteousness; just as a deaf man cannot hear the sweetest music, so this man cannot appreciate the sweet tones of the gospel. Only he that is of God heareth God’s Word, John 8:47. Luther on Ps. 90 (F. C. II, 20–21): In his natural state “man is like a pillar of salt, like Lot’s wife, yea, like a log and a stone, like a lifeless statue which uses neither eyes nor mouth, neither sense nor heart. For man neither sees nor perceives the terrible and fierce wrath of God on account of sin and death but ever continues in his security, even knowingly and willingly, and thereby falls into a thousand dangers and finally into eternal death and damnation … until he is enlightened, converted, and regenerated by the Holy Ghost, for which indeed no stone or block, but man alone, was created.” C.
Tr. 889. There is no synergism of any kind. It is wholly God’s work of grace which opens the blind ears, the carnal heart, by his Spirit and his Word.
The natural man cannot know the things of the Spirit “because they are spiritually judged.” A “psychial” man cannot exercise a spiritual function. The two exclude each other. In the same general sense as “receive” and “know” Paul now writes “judge.” Yet ἀνακρίνεται is a juridic term. It is used with reference to a judge who examines a prisoner in advance of his trial. The things of the Spirit are judicially and properly examined and probed only πνευματικῶς, “in a spiritual way.” Being of the Spirit and in their nature spiritual, how can they be probed so as to determine their real import and value in any other than a spiritual way? And who except a spiritual man can do this? An ass and a sow want thistles. What do they care for the odor of roses and of lilies?
1 Corinthians 2:15
15 In v. 14 Paul explains the rejection of the divine wisdom. His statement is naturally of a negative character. In v. 15 he sets forth the reception of this wisdom, and his statement is naturally positive. How necessary it is that the Corinthians understand both! Paul confines himself to his subject, which is not the doctrine of conversion, how the natural man becomes a spiritual man, but the real character of the gospel wisdom, a wisdom that is so lofty that a natural man cannot reach it but only he who is spiritual. So Paul writes: But the spiritual man judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged by no one. “The spiritual man” is the very opposite of “a natural man.” He can do what Paul states here, for he is a new creature by having received “the spirit that is from God,” v. 12.
He has the spiritual organ and thus the ability to do what Paul says. The verb ἀνακρίνειν is retained (ἀνά, to follow up a series of points, plus κρίνειν in order to distinguish and to arrive at the true value): to investigate or probe judicially, to judge.
Yet πάντα, thus to judge “all things,” comes as a surprise, for it goes far beyond the wisdom of the gospel. A moment’s thought, however, shows us that the natural man does not probe and judge aright even the common things of this life, to say nothing about the gospel; does not see their true nature, purpose, relation, etc. He magnifies these things out of all proportion and hence devotes himself to them exclusively and thus misuses them. But the spiritual man has the true standard whereby to measure even these earthly things. He may sometimes be slothful in this respect and let the wisdom of this world deceive him as the Corinthians are in danger of doing, and he therefore needs the admonition: “Be renewed in the spirit of your mind,” Eph. 4:23.
The particles μέν and δέ place two things in juxtaposition. The first causes surprise, but the second does so still more: “yet he himself is judged by no one.” The spiritual man is able to judge (investigate and value aright) the natural man, but not vice versa. When the natural man, nevertheless, tries it he only makes a fool of himself. What does he know about spiritual things, to say nothing about a spiritual man? What organ has he or what criterion for judging one who is spiritual? He is bound to call the spiritual man a fool and never realizes that the folly is all on the other side. He cannot see our wealth nor his own emptiness while we can see both. It all sounds strange at first, and yet it is quite true and simple. It will do the Corinthians good to ponder this.
1 Corinthians 2:16
16 Paul establishes what he thus says in regard to the spiritual man, namely that he is judged by no one. For who did understand the Lord’s mind so that he shall instruct him? But we have Christ’s mind.
Paul appropriates Isa. 40:13 just as he does in Rom. 11:34. The prophet’s words express just what Paul desires to say at this point, and so he simply adopts the prophet’s words as his own. The proof which Paul offers is a syllogism, the conclusion of which Paul need not state in so many words, for we can easily draw it. Major premise: Of course, no one knows the Lord’s mind and instructs him—this is admitted as self-evident. Minor premise: We have Christ’s mind—he revealed it to us, and so this, too, must be admitted. Ergo, the self-evident conclusion: No one can instruct, know, probe, judge us, in a word, evaluate aright what we are and have. Id est, no fool of this world. God, of course, can; Christ and all who have his mind can, but no one else can.
What folly is it then for those who have not even the ability to accept the things of God’s Spirit, who deem them to be foolishness, to sit in judgment on these things and on the people who possess them and glory in them! Do they, perhaps, intend to instruct the Lord? Will they attempt this impossible, presumptuous, blasphemous thing? Isaiah spoke about Yahweh, and what the prophet said Paul refers to Christ as the last sentence shows. Christ is God, and God’s wisdom, in which no one can instruct Christ, has its origin in the Trinity.
The relative ὅς has the consecutive idea, R. 724, hence we translate: “so that he shall”; and not: “that he may,” A. V., which is final. The R. V.’s translation is indefinite. “To know the Lord’s mind” is to know its contents, its thoughts, its plans, and its purposes, i.e., the wisdom of the gospel. No natural man who has only his worldly mind ever knew the divine mind. To have “Christ’s mind” is to possess its contents by way of a gracious gift (χαρισθένταἡμῖν, v. 12).
The emphasis is on ἡμεῖς and on ἔχομεν: We are they who have his mind. One who is great enough through his own ability to know the Lord’s mind might, perhaps, presume to instruct the Lord—note the crushing irony in the suggestion. We, to whom the Lord graciously revealed his mind, are only too thankful to receive this blessed wisdom, and no presumptuous thought, such as improving on that wisdom, will ever enter our minds. This emphatic “we” again refers to the apostles as we have seen throughout this section. To the Corinthians, Paul brought the mind of Christ and made them share in the divine gospel wisdom. Will they now fall back into their former state and with worldly wisdom tell the Lord how to improve his mind and to make the gospel wisdom what they think it ought to be?
Paul’s thrust is sharp indeed, but the Corinthians need it. We, too.
Blessed are the apostles who first received the mind of Christ, and blessed are all who received the same mind from and through their inspired words. As we walk thus in the light of God’s wisdom, having our minds and our spirits renewed, we are surely a puzzle to the world. But let its criticism and its mockery never disturb us; let us rather test ourselves constantly so that we may never deviate from the mind of Christ.
R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.
C. Tr. Concordia Triglotta. The Symbolical Books of the Ev. Lutheran Church, German-Latin-English. St. Louis, Mo., Concordia Publishing House.