Corinthians, First Epistle to the – Cormorant

Corinthians, First Epistle to the

1. Occasion of the Epistle. — Some tour or five years had elapsed since St. Paul’s first evangelization of Corinth when he addressed the present Epistle to the Christians in that great centre of commerce. No doubt there had been frequent communications, especially during the Apostle’s stay in Asia, for the journey between Corinth and Ephesus was a very easy one; but the communications were probably by letter only. A former epistle is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:9. In which St. Paul had bidden his disciples ‘to have no company with fornicators’ — advice which was no doubt considered hard to obey in the most vicious and pleasure-loving city of the world, and which to some extent is modified in the present Epistle (5:10 f.)) and a letter from the Corinthians to St. Paul is the immediate object of the Apostle’s writing on the present occasion (7:1). But before answering it, he reproves the Corinthians for certain abuses which he had heard of from ‘the [household] of Chloe’ (1:11). namely, schism and party spirit, a bad ease of incest, and litiglousness; for ‘they of Chloe’ seem to have been St. Paul’s informants on all these matters. Chloe was perhaps a woman of importance who carried on a trade in Corinth, as Lydia of Thyatira did at Philippi (Acts 16:14). She therefore not improbably belonged to Asia Minor — the reference to her seems to imply that she was not a Corinthian, — and ‘they of Chloe’ would be her agents who passed to and fro between Ephesus and Corinth. Having reproved the Corinthians for these abuses, the Apostle answers the questions put in their letter to him, as to marriage and other social questions; perhaps also as to Christian worship, the doctrine of the Resurrection, and the collection for the poor of Judaea. We may consider these topics in order.

2. The state of the Corinthian Church. — It will be remembered that the majority of the Christians at Corinth were Gentiles, though there were some Jews among them (Romans 16:21. 1 Corinthians 7:18 9:20 12:13). including such influential men as Crispus (Acts 18:8) and (probably) Sosthenes (Acts 18:17. 1 Corinthians 1:1). It was the heathen antecedents of the Corinthians that led to most of the evils for which St. Paul rebukes them (6:11 12:2). The Apostle, though he had not intended to stay long in Corinth when he first went there, desiring to return to Macedonia(1 Th 2). yet, when his wish was found to be impracticable, threw himself with all his heart into the task of making heathen Corinth, the famous trade centre which lay on one of the greatest routes of communication in the Empire, into a religious centre for the spread of the gospel (cf. Acts 18:5). But the dilHculties were not those with which he had met in Athens, where the philosophic inhabitants derided him. At Corinth the vices of the city had lowered the tone of public opinion; and when St. Paul preached Christ crucified with all plainness of speech (1 Corinthians 1:17 ff.). many heard him gladly, but retained with their nominal Christianity their old heathen ideas on morals. He preached no longer ‘wisdom’ to the Jewish lawyer or the Greek sophist (l^"), but salvation to the plain man; the Gentiles had no sense of sin, and the preaching of a personal Saviour was to them ‘tolly’ (1:23). We need not indeed suppose, as Sir W. Ramsay (.Expositor VI. [i.) 98) points out, that the passage 1:26 ff. describes Corinthian Christians as distinguished from those in other places; the disciples at Corinth were not merely the ‘dregs of society,’ separated from the rest of the population, as the negro from the white man in some countries to-day. Ramsay thinks that the special work of the Church was to raise the thoughtful and educated middle classes. It certainly included men of means (ll^™-). Still, the upper classes and the learned were everywhere less attracted by Christianity than were the poor, with certain conspicuous exceptions, such as St. Paul himself.

It has been debated how far the Church was organized at Corinth at this time. The ministry is seldom referred to in these two Epistles; the ‘bishops and deacons* of Philippians 1 are not mentioned; but we read of apostles, prophets, and teachers (12). n ^ould, however, be unsafe to conclude that there was not a settled local ministry at Corinth. St. Paul had certainly established presbyters in every Church on his First Journey (Acts 14:23). and so apparently in Asia on his Second (20:17). In this Epistle the regular ministers are perhaps not explicitly mentioned, because they were the very persons who were most responsible for the disorders (Goudge, Westminster Com. p. xxxvi), while in ch. 12 the possession of ‘spiritual gifts’ is the subject of discussion, and the mention of the regular ministry would not be germane to it. A settled order of clergy is implied in 9:7, 12, 1.

3. Party Spirit at Corinth. — It is more correct to say that there were parties in the Church than that the Corinthians had made schisms. We read, not of rival organizations, but of factions in the one organization. It is noteworthy that Clement of Rome (Car. 1, 47), writing less than 60 years later, refers to the factions prevalent at Corinth in his time. The Greeks were famous for factions; their cities could never combine together for long. In St. Paul’s time there was a Paulparty, and also an Apollos-parly, a Cephas-party, and a Christ-party (l’^), though the words ‘but I [am] of Christ’ are interpreted by Estius (Com. ed. Sausen, U. 110) and many Greek and Latin commentators, and also perhaps by Clement of Rome (see below, § 10), as being St. Paul’s own observation: ‘You make parties, taking Paul, Apollos, Cephas as leaders, but I, Paul, am no party man, I am Christ’s’ (cf. 3). If, however, we take the more usual interpretation that there were four parties, we may ask what lines of thought they severally represented. The Apollos-party would probably consist of those who disparaged St. Paul as not being sufficiently eloquent and philosophical (cf. 2, Acts 18:24. 2 Corinthians 10:10 11:6). The Cephas-party would be the party of the circumcision, as in Galatia. At Corinth the great dispute about the Law was as yet inits infancy ; it seems to have grown when 2 Corinthians was written (see § 7 (c) below). The Christ-party, it has been conjectured, was the ultra-latitudinarian party, wluch caricatured St. Paul’s teaching about Uberty (cf. Romans 6:1) or (Alford) consisted of those who made a merit of not being attached to any human teacher, and who therefore slighted the Apostleship of St. Paul. Another view is that the Christ-party consisted of the Judaizers mentioned in 2 Co. and Gal. as denying St. Paul’s Apostleship (Goudge, p. xxi.: cf. 2 Corinthians 10:7 where St. Paul’s opponents claim to be peculiarly Christ’s) ; but it is not easy in that case to distinguish them from the Cephas-party. There is no sufficient reason for deducing from 1 Corinthians 1:12 gs that St. Peter had visited Corinth, and that this party consisted of Ills personal disciples. — St. Paul, then, reproves all these parties, and most emphatically those who called themselves by his name. They were united by baptism with Christ, not with him (1:13).

4. Moral Scandals (ch. 5). — A Christian had married his (probably heathen) step-mother. Perhaps his father had been separated from her on his becoming a Christian, but (if 2 Corinthians 7:12 refers to this incident) was still alive; and the son thereupon married her. The Corinthian Church, in the low state of public opinion, did not condemn this, and did not even mention it in their letter to St. Paul. St. Paul reproves them £er tolerating "such fornication as is not even among the Gentiles’ [the word ‘named’ of the AV text has no sufficient authority]. There is a difficulty here, for the heathen tolerated even more incestuous connexions, as between a man and his half-sister. Ramsay (Exp. vi. [i.] 110) supposes the Apostle to mean that the Roman law forbade such marriage. The Roman law of affinity was undoubtedly very strict, and Corinth, as a colony, would be familiar with Ronian law; though the law was not usually put in forced The Jews strongly denounced such connexions (Amos 2:7). The Apostle says nothing of the punishment of the heathen step-mother (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:12). but the man is to be ‘delivered unto Satan’ (5. cf. 1 Timothy 1:20).

This phrase probably means simple excommunication, including the renouncing of all intercourae with the offender (cf. 5:13) though many take it to denote the infliction of some miraculous punishment, disease, or death, and deny that the offender of 2 Corinthians 2 and 7 is the incestuous Corinthian of 1 Corinthians 6. Ramsay conjectures that the phrase is a Christian adaptation of a pagan idea, that a person wronged by another but unable to retaliate should consign the offenaer to the gods and leave punishment to be inflicted by Divine power; Satan would be looked on as God’s instrument in punishing the offender; and the latter, being cast out of the Christian community, would be left as a prey to the devil.

6. Legal Scandals. — St. Paul rebukes the Corinthians for litigiousness, 6:1–8. This passage is usually interpreted as superseding heathen imperial tribunals by voluntary Christian courts for all cases, such as the Jews often had. Ramsay (Exp. vi. [i.l 274) suggests that the Apostle, who usually treats Roman institutions with respect, is not here considering serious questions of crime and fraud at all, nor yet law courts whether heathen or Christian, but those smaller matters which Greeks were accustomed to submit to arbitration. In Roman times, as this procedure developed, the arbiters became really judges of an inferior court. recognized by the law, and the magistrates appointed them. In this view St. Paul reproves the Corinthians for taking their umpires from among the heathen instead of from among their Christian brethren.

6. Questions of Moral Sin and of Marriage (6:12). — Probably the passage e’^-^" is part of the answer to the Corinthian letter. The correspondent had said, ‘All things are lawful for me.’ But all things (the Apostle replies) are not expedient. ‘Meats are for the belly, and the belly for meats’ (i.e. just as food is natural to the body, so is impurity). But both are transitory, and the body as a whole is for the Lord ; in virtue of the Resurrection fornication is a serious sin, for it destroys the spiritual character of the body. True marriage is the most perfect symbol of the relation between Christ and the Church (e""-; cf. Ephesians 5:23 ff.). In ch. 7 the Apostle answers the Corinthians’ questions about marriage. It is usually thought that they wished to extol asceticism, basing their view on our Lord’s words in Matthew 19:11 f.: that they suggested that celibacy was to be strongly encouraged in all, and that the Apostle, though agreeing as an abstract principle, yet, because of imminent persecution and Jesus’ immediate return (7). replied that in many cases celibacy was undesirable. But Ramsay points out that such a question is unnatural to both Jews and Gentiles of that time. The better heathen tried to enforce marriage as a cure for immorality; while the Jews looked on it as an universal duty. Ramsay supposes, therefore, that the Corinthians wished to make marriage compulsory, and that St. Paul pleads for a voluntary celibacy. Against this it is urged that the Essenes (a Jewish sect) upheld non-marriage. But it is difficult to think, in view of 11:11 and Ephesians 5:23 ff.: that St. Paul held the celibate lite to be essentially the higher one, and the married life only a matter of permission, a concession to weakness. — Alter positive commands as to divorce (7) the Apostle answers in 7 another question: which would be either (see above) a suggestion that fathers should be discouraged from finding husbands for their daughters, or that they should be compelled to do so. On the latter supposition, St. Paul says that there is no obligation, and that the daughter may well remain unmarried. The subject is concluded with advice as to widows’ re-marriage.

7. Social Questions (8). (a) Food. — Another question was whether Christians may eat meats which had previously been offered to idols, as most of the meat sold in Corinth would have been. St. Paul’s answer is a running commentary on the Corinthians’ words (so Lock, Exp. V. [vi.] 65; Ramsay agrees): ‘We know that we all have knowledge; we are not bound by absurd ceremonial restrictions.’ Yes, but knowledge puffeth up; without love and humility it is nothing; besides not all have knowledge. ‘The false gods are really non-existent; we have but one God; as there is no such thing really as an idol we are free to eat meats offered in idol temples.’ But there are weaker brethren who would be scandalized. ‘Meat will not commend us to God: it is indifferent.’ But do not let your liberty cause others to fall (note the change of pronoun in v. 8 f.).

Why is the decree of Acts 15:29 not quoted? Look suggests that it is because at Corinth there was no question between Jew and Gentile, but only between Gentile and Gentile, and Jewish opinion might be neglected. Ramsay (^Exp. yi. [ii.] 375) thinks that the decree is not mentioned because it was the very subject of discussion. The Corinthians had said (he supposes): ‘Why should we be tied down by the Council’s decree here at Corinth, so long after? We know better than to suppose that a non-existent idol can taint food.’ St. Paul replies, maintaining the spirit of the decree, that offence must not be given to the weaker brethren (so Hort).

(6) Idol Feasts (gi"-" 10:14). St. Paul absolutely forbids eating at idol feasts. Probably many of the Corinthians had retained their connexion with pagan clubs. The pagan feast meant a brotherhood or special bond of union; but the two kinds of brotherhood were incompatible. A Christian who, out of complaisance, attends an idol feast, is really entering a hostile brotherhood.

(c) Digression on Forbearance O’-IO"). — St. Paul aaya that he habitually oonsidera the rights of others and does not press his own rights as an Apostle to the_ full; he implies that the Corinthians should not press their liberty so as to scandalize others. This passage shows how little as yet the Judaizers had been at work in Corinth. St. Paul announces his position as an Apostle, and the right of the Christian minister to Uveof the gospel, but he will not use his rights to the full (9:18 RV). He teaches self-denial and earnestness from the example of the Isthmian games i^"^ ■ ) , and shows that the Israelites, in spite of all their privileges, fell from lack of this self -discipline. It is noteworthy that he speaks of ‘our fathers’ (10:1). Perhaps, havingaddressed the Gentiles in particular in ch. 9, he now turns to the Jewish section of the Corinthian Church: he refers to a Rabbinical legend in 10:4. Or he may be considering the whole Church as being the spiritual descendants of Israel.

8. ChristianWorship (11:2). (a) Yeaing of Women. — In reply (as it seems) to another question, St. Paul says that it is the Christian custom for men ‘praying or prophesying’ to have their heads uncovered, but for women to have theirs covered. This apparently trivial matter is an instance of the application of Christian principles to Christian ceremonial. The Jews of both sexes prayed with head covered and with a veil before the face (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:14 ff.) therefore St. Paul’s injunction does not follow Jewish custom. It is based on the subordination of the woman to the man, and is illustrated by the existence of regulated ranks among the angels; for this seems to be the meaning of ll’".

(6) The Eucharist — The Corinthians joined together in a social meal — somewhat later called an Agape or Love-feast — and the Eucharist, probably in imitation both of the Last Supper and of the Jewish and heathen meals taken in common. To this combination the name ‘Lord’s Supper’ (here only in NT) is given. But the party-spirit, already spoken of, showed itself in this custom; the Corinthians did not eat the Lord’s supper, but their own, because of their factions. St. Paul therefore gives the narrative of our Lord’s Institution as he himself had received it, strongly condemns those who make an unworthy communion as ‘guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord,’ and inculcates preparation by self-probation.

It is chiefly this passage that has led some to think that the writer of the Kpistle is quoting the Synoptic Gospels (see below, § 10) ; the Lukan account, as we have it in our Bibles, is very like the Pauline. But the deduction is very improbable. Even if our Lukan text is right, the result is only what we should have expected, that the companion of St. Paul has taken his master’s form of the narrative, which he would doubtless have frequently heard him use liturgically, and has incorporated it in his Gospel. As a matter of fact, however, it is not improbable that the Lukan form was really much shorter than the Pauline, and that some early scribe has lengthened it to make it fit in with 1 Corinthians 11:23 ff. (Westcott-Hort, NT in Greek, ii. Append, p. 64).

(c) Spiritual Gifts (chs, 12-14). — The public manifestation of the presence of the Spirit known as ‘speaking with tongues’ (see art. Tongues [Gift of]), seems to have been very common at Corinth. After the magnificent digression of ch. 13, which shows that of all spiritual gilts love is the greatest, that it alone is eternal, that without it all other gifts are useless, St. Paul applies the principle that spiritual gifts are means to an end, not an end in themselves; and he therefore upholds ‘prophecy’ (i.e., in this connexion, the interpretation of Scripture and of Christian doctrine) as superior to speaking with tongues, because it edifies all present. Hebrews 7:8, further, that women are to keep silence (i.e. not to prophesy?) in the public assemblies (14: cf. 1 Timothy 2:12). In l is (cf. Acts 21:9) some women are said to have had the gift of prophecy; so that we must understand that they were allowed to exercise it only among women, or in their own households. But possibly the Apostle has chiefly in his mind questions asked by women in the public assemblies (cf. 14).

9. The Resurrection of the Body (ch. is).— This, the only doctrinal chapter of the Epistle, contains also the earliest evidence for our Lord’s resurrection. Apparently the Gentile converts at Corinth felt a great difSculty in accepting the doctrine of the resurrection of the body; it appeared to them too material a doctrine to be true (ISi", cf. 2 Timothy 2:18). St. Paul replies that Christ has risen, as many still alive can testify, and that therefore the dead will rise. For his treatment of the subject see art. Paul the Apostle, iii. 10. The Corinthian scepticism does not seem to have died out at the end of the century, for Clement of Rome, writing to Corinth, strongly emphasizes the doctrine (Cor. 24f.).

St. Paul concludes the Epistle with directions about the regular collecting of alms for the poor Christians of Judsea, and with personal notices and salutations.

10. Date and genuineness of the Epistle. —It is referred to as St. Paul’s by Clement of Rome, c. a.d. 95 (jOor. 47), who speaks of the parties of Paul, Cephas, and Apollos, but omits the Christ-party (see above § 3); we cannot infer from his phrase ‘the Epistle of the blessed Paul’ that he knew only one Epistle to the Corinthians, as early usage shows (Lightfoot, Clement, ii. 143). There are other clear allusions in Clement. Ignatius (Eph. 18f.) refers to 1 Corinthians 1:20, 23 f. 4:13 and probably 2:6; Polycarp (§11) quotes 1 Corinthians 6:2 as Paul’s; references are found in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, in Justin Martyr, and in the Epistle to Diognetus; while Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian at the end of the 2nd cent, quote the Epistle fully. Of the 2nd cent, heretics the Ophites and Basilides certainly knew it. Internal evidence fully bears out the external; no Epistle shows more clearly the mark of originality ; and the undesigned coincidences between it and Acts, which Paley draws out, point in the same direction. It is in fact one of the four ‘generally accepted’ Epistles of St. Paul. See art. Paul the Apostle, i. 2, for the general arguments adduced against their genuineness. Against that of our Epistle in particular it has been alleged that it is dependent on Romans — thus, 4:6 (‘the things which are written’) is said to be a quotation of Romans 12:3. surely a most fanciful idea — and on the Synoptic Gospels, especially in two particulars, the account of the Last Supper (see § 8 (6) above) , and that of the Resurrection appearances of our Lord (15:4 ff.). The real problem of the latter passage, however (as Goudge remarks, p. xxvii.), is not to account for the extent to which it runs parallel with the Gospels, but to explain why it does not run more nearly parallel with them. Few will be convinced by a criticism which practically assumes that a Christian writer of the 1st cent, could only know the facts of our Lord’s earthly life from our Gospels. We may then take the genuineness of the Epistle as being unassailable.

If so, what is its date? Relatively to the rest of the Pauline chronology, it may be approximately fixed. In the year of his arrest at Jerusalem, St. Paul left Corinth in the early spring, after spending three months there (Acts 20:3, 6). He must therefore have arrived there in late autumn or early winter. This seems to have been the visit to Corinth promised in 2 Corinthians 13:1. which was the third visit. Two visits in all must have therefore preceded 2 Cor. (some think also 1 Cor.), and in any case an interval of some months between the two Epistles must be allowed for. In 1 Corinthians 16:6 the Apostle had announced his intention of wintering in Corinth, and it is possible that the visit of Acts 20:3 is the fulfilment of this intention, though St. Paul certainly did not carry out all his plans at this time (2 Corinthians 1). If so, 1 Cor. would have been written from Ephesus in the spring of the year before St. Paul’s arrest at Jerusalem.

This date is favoured by the allusion of 5:7 f.: which suggests to many commentatora that the Easter festival was being, or about to be, celebrated when St. Paul wrote. It is a little doubtful, however, whether the Gentile churches kept the annual as well as the weekly feast of the Resurrection at this early date; see art. ‘Calendar, The Christian,’ in Hastings’ DCG i. 256.

Ramsay (;S(. Paul the Trav. p. 276) thinks that we must date our Epistle some six months earlier, in the second autumn before St. Paul’s arrest. The events alluded to In 2 Cor. require a long interval between the Epistles. Moreover, the Corinthians had begun the collection for the poor Jews ‘a year ago’ when St. Paul wrote 2 Cor. (8:10 9:2). and it seems, therefore, that at least a year must have elapsed since the injunction of 1 Co 16. It is suggested, however, that we should rather translate the phrase ‘last year,’ and that to one who used the Macedonian calendar, and who wrote in the autumn, ‘last spring’ would also be ‘last year,’ for the new year began in September. On the whole, however, the argument about the Easter festival seems to be precarious, and the conditions are probably better satisfied if a longer interval be allowed, and the First Epistle put about 18 months before St. Paul’s arrest. The absolute, as opposed to the’relative, date will depend on our view of the rival schemes given in art. Chronology OP THE NT, § iii. A. J. Maclean.

Cobinthuns, Second Epistle to

1 . Circumstances of the Epistle.^ — The circumstances of this ‘Epistle are more diiEcult to discover than those of any other of St. Paul’s Epistles. The historical situation has been well described as a’ trackless forest,’ and as a consequence the views of writers are very varied. We may best start by noticing that the Epistle was clearly written when the Apostle was burdened by some great anxiety, perhaps physical, but assuredly spiritual (11^8). xhis anxiety seems to have been connected with at least three things: (a) a mission of Titus; (6) a letter St. Paul had written to Corinth, either our 1 Cor., or an Epistle now lost (7’); (c) the treatment of some offender at Corinth, either the guilty one of 1 Corinthians 5:1. or some resolute opponent of St. Paul’s authority. In 13:1 we read of a projected third visit (for such seems the most natural interpretation of the words) , and this presupposes a second visit of which we have no record. Four questions then need to be answered.

(1) Why Titus’ mission should have caused anxiety? (2) What was the letter that led to St. Paul’s concern as to its effect? (3) Who was the offender referred to? (4) When did the second visit take place?

2 . St. Paul and Corinth . — The Church was f oundedjln 53 or 54 on the Second Missionary Journey (Acts 18:1). St. Paul remained there two years. After leaving, he kept up communications (2 Corinthians 12:17). though it was only at Ephesus on the Third Missionary Journey in 66 (Acts 19:1) that he could resume personal intercourse. While there, he heard of the terrible immorality, and wrote a short letter (1 Corinthians 5:9). ordering them to have no intercourse with fornicators. This letter, now lost, may be referred to in 2 Corinthians 1:18; and if so, it may have contained a statement that he would come to Corinth before going to Macedonia. This project, however, was altered (1 Corinthians 16:5). About the same time (a.d. 56) he possibly paid a second visit from Ephesus to Corinth, which caused him great pain and grief (2 Corinthians 2:1 12:14, 21 13:1). Then in the spring of 57 he wrote 1 Cor., and on the strength of his Apostolic authority ordered the punishment of the incestuous person (1 Corinthians 6:1–5). At the same time he sent Timothy on a mission (1 Corinthians 4:17 16:10) to support and supplement his letter. It is possible that ‘nmothy returned with the sad news that the Church refused to carry out St. Paul’s orders, or possibly that there was a growing opposition to his authority under some Judaizing ringleader. Then followed the mission of Titus, carrying with him a letter, our 1 Cor., or another now lost (2 Corinthians 2:3 7:8). in which St. Paul insisted on Church discipline. Paul leaves Ephesus owing to riot (Acts 19), expects to see Titus in Troas, but does not meet him until they reach Macedonia in the summer or autumn of 57 (2 Corinthians 2:12, 13). The news Titus brought from Corinth is mixed. The majority of the Church had obeyed his orders and punished the offender (2 Corinthians 2:6–11), but the Judaizers had grown stronger in opposition to the Apostle, charging him with inconsistency, false Apostleship, boasting, and money-making. They were also probably endeavouring to thwart his collections for Jerusalem (1 Corinthians 16:1. 2 Corinthians 8:9). Not least of all was the still existing danger for Gentile converts of relapsing into heathen worship and impurity (2 Corinthians 6:14 7:1 12:19–21). As a result of this news, St. Paul writes our 2 Cor., in which (1) he expresses great satisfaction at the good news of discipline exercised against evildoers, (2) justifies the collection for Jerusalem, and (3) vindicates his Apostolicauthority. Then followed a visit (the third) to Corinth, and a stay of three months (Acts 20:3).

The moat uncertain point is the place of the second visit. As above stated, it is thought by some to have taken place before our 1 Cor. was written, though others suggest it should come soon after Timothy’s mission and as a result of his failure. On this view, however, it is difficult, if not impossible, to account for Titus’ mission. It is also urged (Robertson in Hastings’ DB) that a place for the second visit cannot be found anterior to our 1 Cor., and it must therefore be removed altogether from thesphere and circumstances of our two Epistles. It is also uncertain whether the offender is the one of 1 Cor., as seems more probable, or some entirely different person who was a virulent opponent of St. Paul’s Apostolicauthority. Godet makes out a strong and almost convincing case for a different set of circumstances in 2 Cor. from those in 1 Corinthians. There is equal uncertainty as to the letter about which St. Paul was anxious Moat probably it is one now lost, and not our 1 Corinthians. Denney {Expos. Bible) considers the connexion between 1 and 2 Ck>r. so close as to need no hypotheses of additional Epistles now lost. He would explain 2 Cor. entirely out of 1 Corinthians. Bernard favours this view (so formerly Plummer) . On the other handj Godet places the second visit between our 1 and 2 Cor., which visit is thought to be the painful and recent one in 2 Corinthians 1. The following, modified from Robertson (Hastings’ DB^ i. 495), is perhaps the best scheme of events: — (1) Foundation of Church at Corinth (Ac 18). (2) Apollo3 at Corinth(Ac l9’, l Co li2). (3) St. Paul at Ephesus (Acts 19:1). [The second visit to CJorinth if before our 1 Cor.] (4) Lost letter of 1 Corinthians 5:9 (perhaps announcing the jplan of 2 Co 1"). (5) Some would put second visit to Connth here. (6) Visit of Stephanas and others from Corinth to St. Paul at Ephesus (1 Corinthians 16:17, 18). askmg for advice on certain matters (1 Corinthians 7:1 8:1). (7) 1 Cor. sent by Titus and the ‘brother’ (2 Co 12’8). (8) St. Paul determines to pay a double visit to CJorinth (2 Corinthians 1:15). . (9) Painful news from Corinth through Titusleads toachangeof plan. (10) A severe letter sent. (11) Titus sent to Corinth (2 Corinthians 7:7–15). with, on the whole, favourable results. (12) Titus returns and meets St. Paul in Macedonia. (.13) Titus sent to Corinth with 2 Corinthians. (14) St. Paul’s visit to Corinth and three months’ stay (Acts 20).

It is interesting to note the happy results of this letter. Not only did the Apostle go again to Corinth, but actually wintered there. Still more, it was during these three months that he wrote his great Epistle to the Romans, the quiet tone and massive strength of which bear witness to the restf ulness of the Apostle’s mind and heart, as well as to the complete victory over the Judaizers. Not least of all, his favourite project — the collection for Jerusalem — was brought to a successful completion, and the Church of Corinth had some of its members included in the delegation to Jerusalem (Acts 20:4). Hia vigorous Epistle was therefore not in vain, and Corinth and the whole Church have been the gainers by it in the overruling providence of God.

3. Date. — 1 Cor. was written in the spring of 57, and 2 Cor. probably in the same year, though it is impossible to say definitely what was the exact interval between them. The all-engrossing topic of the collection for Jerusalem (chs. 8 and 9) indicates the date as during the time of the Third Missionary Journey. St. Paul had left Asia (,!’), and had passed through Troas (2:12). and was in Macedonia (2 9:2). From Acts 20:3 we know that he wintered at Corinth, and so 2 Cor. fits in exactly

159, with Acts 20:2. Waite (^Speaker’s Com.) therefore suggests October 57 and not earlier. This would suit the circumstances of Timothy’s and Titus’ visits, and account for the great change at Corinth towards St. Paul. Godet would put just over a year between the two Epistles, arguing that such a change of circumstances and tone could not have arisen within a few months.

4. Integrity. — There is no ground for supposing that the letter is not now in its original form. Recent attempts to separate it into two letters and to identify one of them (chs. 10-13) with the supposed lost painful Epistle, are not only not convincing in their arguments, but also have the great weight of textual criticism and Church tradition against them. It is impossible to suppose that all trace of such textual changes could have been entirely removed. Our authorities for the text are early enough to make us question the possibility of a sufficient time elapsing for so serious a modification of the original text. The subject-matter entirely agrees with the situation described above. The strong feelings under which the Epistle was written, and the conflicting emotions which swayed the Apostle, amply account for Its ruggedness and abruptness.

5. Character. — Not even Galatians gives so full a revelation of the Apostle’s mind and soul as does 2 Corinthians. It has been rightly called ‘Paul’s Apologia,’ and as 1 Cor. is the first chapter of Ecclesiastical History, so 2 Cor. is the first chapter of Ecclesiastical Biography. It reveals the personal character of the great Apostle of the Gentiles in its twofold aspect of tenderness and strength, gentleness and severity, meelsness and indignation. In questioning his Apostolic authority, the Judaizers were really questioning the gospel he preached, and indirectly the Master he loved and served. We are not surprised, therefore, to notice the vehemence of his vindication and the torrent of irony and denunciation with which he overwhelms his opponents. Here as nowhere else we see the man he was, stern yet tender, with a will of steel and yet a heart of wax. The iron hand and the velvet glove are combined in no common degree. His spiritual experiences are also brought out here as nowhere else; his visions (12:1). his ‘thorn’ (v. 7). his conflicts (2:10 12:7), his physical weakness (4:7). his constant sufferings (11:23–27). -We see something of what he had to endure from his unscrupulous Judaizing foes in their remarks about his personal appearance (10:10). his fickleness (l")t his pretended Apostleship and Jewish birth (11:22). and Ills doubtful, if not dishonest, motives about the collection (6:3). But if we see what he endured, we see also what he enjoyed in union with his Master. We have not a few indications of his personal relation to Christ and his oneness with tiis Master in suffering (is 4:10). fellowship (12:8, 9). and the hope of glory (5:1). The keynote of chs. 1-9 is ‘comfort in tribulation,’ and of chs. 10-13 ‘boasting in weakness.’ The Epistle is thus noteworthy for its remarkable revelation of the inner life of the Apostle as he faced his enemies, pleaded with his friends, bore the burden of the care of all the Churches, and lived in fellowship and communion with His unseen Lord and Master.

The doctrinal element of the Epistle is necessarily not prominent, but the foundations of the characteristic Pauline position are both assumed and seen. The comparison between the two dispensations (ch. 3), the teaching about Christ’s death (S"-^‘), the eschatology (4:16), the Christology (S^), and the Trinitarian expression of the concluding Benediction (13:14), are among the leading Apostolic thoughts.

6. Authenticity.— There are but slight traces of the Epistle in the writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, though this is not to be wondered at, because of its personal rather than doctrinal character. The evidence for the text of the Epistle is, of course, practically on the same basis as that of 1 Corinthians. The real proofs of authenticity are internal, and are found in the character of the Epistle. It is too manifestly Pauline in its intensely individual character to be other than genuine, and hence it has long been one of the four undisputed Epistles of Paul.

7. Analysis. — The personal and emotional nature of the contents makes analysis far less easy than that of Epistles which were written under very different, because quieter, circumstances. Perhaps we may best understand and master the contents of the Epistle if, generally following Godet, we analyze it under its three main sections. Their connexion is mainly chronological: li2-7’s dealing with the past in relation to Umself and Corinth, S’-Q" dealing with a special and important matter of present duty, and 10:1 taking up a question that affected the entire future of bis relations to them and the whole Church.

(1) Personal Introduction, l*-u.

(2) 1:12. Himself and his ministry with special refer-

ence to Corinth. The Past. (a) l’2-2u. Explanation of his change of plans. (6) 2:12. After peraonal references he passes to diflcusa the Christian ministry. i. Its power, 2:14. ii. Its tribulations and hopes, 4:7. iii. Its object and source, 5:11–21. iv. Its fulfilment by himself, 6:1. (c) 7:4–16. The return of Titus and its glad resulte.

(3) 8:1. His efforts on behalf of the poor saints in

Jerusalem. The Present, (a) The example of Macedonia. (6) 8:6. The new mission of Titus, (c) 9:6–15. The Corinthian Church encouraged to give.

(4) 10’-13’°. His approaching visit to Corinth, and the

consequent need of a personal vindication in the face

of enemies. The Future. (a) lO’-‘s. His claim to Apostolic authority. (6) H’-12i8. His claim to superiority of Apostleship. (c) 12. His contemplated visit and mode of procedure.

(5) Personal conclusion, 13.

[Note — The chronology given above follows Lightfoot. According to Turner (Hastings’ DB, art. ‘Chronology of the NT’) the dates would all be two years earlier.]

W. H. Griffith ‘Thohas.

Cormorant

(Leviticus 11:17, Deuteronomy 14:17, sftMafc). The shlUak, as the meaning of the word implies, was some kind of plunging bird. Two varieties of cormorant, Phalacrocorax carbo and P. pygmceus, occur in Palestine both on the sea coasts and on inland waters, e.g. the Dead Sea. It was an ‘unclean’ bird. See also Pelican. E. W. G. Mastbrman.