Albert Barnes Commentary 1 Corinthians 1

1 Corinthians

INTRODUCTION

I.—THE SITUATION OF CORINTH, AND THE CHARACTER OF ITS INHABITANTS

Corinth was, properly, a small domain or territory in Greece, bounded on the east by the Gulf of Saron, on the south by the kingdom of Argos, on the west by Sicyon, and on the north by the kingdom of Megaris and the upper part of the isthmus and Bay of Corinth, the latter of which is now called the Golfo de Lepanto, or the Gulf of Lepanto.

This tract, or region, not large in size, possessed a few rich plains but was generally uneven, and the soil of mediocre quality. The city of Corinth was the capital of this region. It stood near the middle of the isthmus, which in its narrowest part was about six miles wide, though somewhat wider where Corinth stood.

Here was the natural carrying-place, or portage, from the Ionian Sea on the west to the Aegean on the east. Many efforts were made by the Greeks, and afterwards by the Romans, to create a communication between the Aegean and Adriatic seas by cutting across this isthmus, and traces of these attempts still remain.

Means were even contrived for transporting vessels across. This isthmus was also particularly important as it was the key to the Peloponnesus, and attempts were often made to fortify it. The city had two harbors: Lechaeum on the Gulf of Corinth, or Sea of Crissa, on the west, to which it was joined by a double wall about a mile and a half in length (twelve stadia); and Cenchrea on the Sea of Saron on the east, distant nearly nine miles (about seventy stadia). It was, therefore, a situation peculiarly favorable for commerce and highly important in the defense of Greece.

The city is said to have been founded by Sisyphus, long before the siege of Troy, and was then called Ephyra. The time of its founding is, however, unknown. The name Corinth was supposedly given to it from Corinthus, who, according to different authors, is said to have been the son of Jupiter, or of Marathon, or of Pelops, who is said to have rebuilt and adorned the city.

The city of Corinth was built at the foot of a high hill, on the top of which stood a citadel. This hill, located south of the city, served as its defense in that quarter, as its sides were extremely steep. On the other three sides, it was protected by strong and lofty ramparts. The circumference of the city proper was about five miles (forty stadia). Its situation gave it great commercial advantages.

As the whole region was mountainous and rather barren, and as its location afforded the city extraordinary commercial advantages, the inhabitants early turned their attention to commerce and amassed great wealth. This fact was, to a significant extent, the foundation of the luxury, effeminacy, and vices for which the city afterwards became so distinguished.

The merchandise of Italy, Sicily, and the western nations was landed at Lechaeum on the west; and that of the islands of the Aegean Sea, Asia Minor, and the Phoenicians and other oriental nations, at Cenchrea on the east. The city of Corinth thus became the trading center of Asia and Europe, covered the sea with its ships, and formed a navy to protect its commerce. It was distinguished by building galleys and ships of a new and improved form, and its naval force earned it respect from other nations. Its population and wealth were thus increased by the influx of foreigners. It became a city distinguished more by its wealth, naval force, and commerce than by its military achievements, though it produced a few of the most valiant individuals and distinguished leaders for the armies of Greece.

Its population was increased, and its character somewhat formed, by another circumstance. In the neighborhood of the city, the Isthmian games were celebrated, which attracted much attention and drew many strangers from distant parts of the world. The apostle Paul often refers to these games when recommending Christian energy and activity (see 1 Corinthians 9:24, 26, 27).

From these causes, the city of Corinth became eminent among all ancient cities for wealth, luxury, and dissipation. It was the trading center of the world. Wealth flowed into it from all quarters. Luxury, amusement, and dissipation were the natural consequences, until it became the most gay and dissolute city of its times—the Paris of antiquity.

There was another cause that contributed to its character of dissoluteness and corruption: I refer to its religion. The principal deity worshiped in the city was Venus, just as Diana was the principal deity worshiped at Ephesus, and Minerva at Athens, and so on. Ancient cities were usually devoted to some particular god or goddess and were supposed to be under their peculiar protection .

Corinth was thus devoted, or dedicated, to the goddess of love, or licentious passion, and the effect may be easily conceived. The temple of Venus was erected on the north side or slope of the Acrocorinthus, a mountain about half a mile high, south of the city. From its summit, a magnificent prospect opened to Parnassus and Helicon on the north, to the island of Aegina and the citadel of Athens to the eastward, and to the rich and beautiful plains of Sicyon to the west.

This mountain was covered with temples and splendid houses but was especially devoted to Venus and was the place of her worship. Her shrine appeared above those of the other gods. It was enjoined by law that one thousand beautiful females should officiate as courtesans, or public prostitutes, before the altar of the goddess of love.

In a time of public calamity and imminent danger, these women attended at the sacrifices and walked with the other citizens singing sacred hymns. When Xerxes invaded Greece, their intercession was sought to avert the impending calamity. They were supported chiefly by foreigners, and from the proceeds of their vice, a copious revenue was derived for the city.

Individuals, to ensure success in their undertakings, vowed to present to Venus a certain number of courtesans, whom they obtained by sending to distant countries. Foreign merchants were attracted to Corinth in this way and in a few days could be stripped of all their property. It thus became a proverb: "It is not for every man to go to Corinth" (ou pantos andros es Korinthon estin ho plous).

The effect of this on the morals of the city can be easily understood. It became the most gay, dissipated, corrupt, and ultimately the most effeminate and feeble part of Greece. It is necessary to make these statements because they show the exceeding grace of God in gathering a church in such a city and the power of the gospel in overcoming the strongest and most polluted passions of our nature. Furthermore, no small part of the irregularities that arose in the church at Corinth, which gave the apostle occasion to write this epistle, were produced by this prevailing licentiousness of the people and by the fact that gross and licentious passions had received the countenance of law and the patronage of public opinion (see chapters 5–7; see also the article on Lais in biographical dictionaries).

Though Corinth was thus dissipated and licentious in its character, it was also distinguished for its refinement and learning. Every part of literature was cultivated there, so that before its destruction by the Romans, Cicero (pro lege Manilia, chapter 5) did not hesitate to call it "totius Graeciae lumen"—the light of all Greece.

Corinth was, of course, exposed to all the changes and disasters that occurred to the other cities of Greece. After a variety of revolutions in its government, which it is not necessary to repeat here, it was taken by the Roman consul L. Mummius, 147 years before Christ. The riches found in the city were immense.

During the conflagration, it is said that all the metals there were melted and ran together, forming that valuable compound so celebrated as Corinthian brass. Others, however, with more probability, say that Corinthian artists were accustomed to form a metal by mixing brass with small quantities of gold and silver, which was so brilliant as to cause the extraordinary esteem in which this metal was held.

Corinth, however, was rebuilt in the time of Julius Caesar. It was colonized by his order and soon resumed some of its former magnificence. By the Romans, the whole of Greece was divided into two provinces, Macedonia and Achaia. Corinth was the capital of Achaia, and this was its condition when Paul visited it.

With its ancient splendor, it also soon relapsed into its former dissipation and licentiousness; and when Paul visited it, it was perhaps as dissolute as at any former period of its history. It is not necessary to trace the subsequent history of Corinth. On the division of the Roman Empire, it naturally fell to the Eastern Empire. When this was overthrown by the Turks, it came into their hands, and it remained under their dominion until the recent revolution in Greece.

It still retains its ancient name but with none of its ancient grandeur. A single temple, itself dismantled, it is said, is all that remains, except for ruins, to mark the site of one of the most splendid cities of antiquity. For the authorities for these statements, see Travels of Anacharsis, vol. iii. pp. 369–388; Edinburgh Encyclopedia, article "Corinth"; Lempriere's Classical Dictionary; and Bayle's Dictionary, article "Corinth."

II.—THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH AT CORINTH

The apostle Paul first visited Corinth about A.D. 52 (Lardner). He was then on his way from Macedonia to Jerusalem. He had spent some time at Athens, where he had preached the gospel, but not with enough success to warrant him remaining or organizing a church (see Acts 17:1 and following).

He was alone at Athens, having expected Silas and Timothy to join him there, but in that he was disappointed (Acts 17:15). He came to Corinth alone but found Aquila and Priscilla there, who had recently come from Rome. With them, he awaited the arrival of Silas and Timothy. When they arrived, Paul entered upon the great work of preaching the gospel in that splendid and dissipated city—first to the Jews, and when they rejected it, then to the Greeks (Acts 18:5–6). He himself stated his feelings when he engaged in this work in 1 Corinthians 16:2–5 (see Note on that place). His embarrassment and discouragements were met by a gracious promise from the Lord that He would be with him, would not leave him, and that it was His purpose to gather a church there .

Paul remained in the city for eighteen months (Acts 18:11), preaching without interference, until he was opposed by the Jews under Sosthenes, their leader, and brought before Gallio. When Gallio refused to hear the case and Paul was discharged, it is said that he remained there yet a good while (Acts 18:18), and then sailed into Syria.

Of the size of the church that was first organized there, and of the general character of the converts, we have no other knowledge than what is contained in the epistle. There is reason to think that Sosthenes, who was the principal agent of the Jews in arraigning Paul before Gallio, was converted (see 1 Corinthians 1:1), and perhaps some other persons of distinction. However, it is evident that the church was chiefly composed of those in the more humble walks of life (see 1 Corinthians 1:26 and following).

It was a remarkable illustration of the grace of God and the power of the gospel that a church was organized in that city of gaiety, fashion, luxury, and licentiousness. It shows that the gospel is adapted to meet and overcome all forms of wickedness and to subdue all classes of people to itself. If a church was established in the gay and dissolute capital of Achaia, then there is not now a city on earth so gay and so profligate that the same gospel may not meet its corruptions and subdue it to the cross of Christ. Paul subsequently visited Corinth about A.D. 58, six years after the establishment of the church there. He passed the winter in Greece—doubtless in Corinth and its neighborhood—on his journey from Macedonia to Jerusalem, the fifth time he visited the latter city. During this stay at Corinth, he wrote the Epistle to the Romans (see the Introduction to the Epistle to the Romans).

III.—THE TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS

It has been uniformly supposed that this epistle was written at Ephesus. The circumstances mentioned incidentally in the epistle itself place this beyond a doubt. The epistle purports to have been written not like that to the Romans, without Paul having been to the place to which it was written, but after he had been at Corinth.

As he says, I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech, or of wisdom (1 Corinthians 2:1). It also purports to have been written when he was about to make another visit to that church: But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will (1 Corinthians 4:19); and, Now I will come unto you, when I shall pass through Macedonia: for I do pass through Macedonia (1 Corinthians 16:5). The history in the Acts of the Apostles informs us that Paul did in fact visit Achaia, and doubtless Corinth, twice (see Acts 17:1 and following; Acts 20:1–3). The same history also informs us that it was from Ephesus that Paul went into Greece. Since the epistle purports to have been written a short time before that journey, it follows, to be consistent with the history, that the epistle must have been written while he was at Ephesus. The narrative in Acts also informs us that Paul had spent two years in Ephesus before he set out on his second journey into Greece.

With this supposition, all the circumstances mentioned in this epistle relating to the place where the apostle then was agree. If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? (1 Corinthians 15:32). It is true, as Dr. Paley remarks (Horae Paulinae), that the apostle might say this wherever he was; but it was much more natural and much more to the purpose to say it if he was at Ephesus at the time and in the midst of those conflicts to which the expression relates.

The churches of Asia salute you (1 Corinthians 16:19). It is evident from this that Paul was near those churches and had intercourse with them. But "Asia," throughout the Acts of the Apostles and in the epistles of Paul, does not commonly mean the whole of Asia, nor the whole of Asia Minor, but a district in the interior of Asia Minor, of which Ephesus was the capital (16:6; 20:16).

Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house (1 Corinthians 16:19). Aquila and Priscilla were at Ephesus during the time in which I shall endeavor to show this epistle was written (Acts 18:26). It is evident, if this were so, that the epistle was written at Ephesus. But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost (1 Corinthians 16:8).

This is almost an express declaration that he was at Ephesus when the epistle was written. For a great door and effectual is opened unto me, and there are many adversaries (1 Corinthians 16:9). How well this agrees with the history may be seen by comparing it with the account in Acts when Paul was at Ephesus: So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed (Acts 19:20). That there were "many adversaries" may be seen from the account of the same period in Acts 19:9: But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples .

From these circumstances, it is put beyond controversy that the epistle was written from Ephesus. These circumstantial and undesigned coincidences between a letter written by Paul and an independent history by Luke are one of those strong evidences, so common in genuine writings, which show that neither is a forgery. An impostor, in forging a history like that of Acts and then writing an epistle, would not have thought of these coincidences or introduced them in the manner in which they occur here.

It is perfectly manifest that the notes of time, place, and circumstances in the history and in the epistle were not introduced to correspond with each other but have every appearance of genuineness and truth (see Paley's Horae Paulinae on this epistle).

The circumstances that have been referred to regarding the place where this epistle was written also serve to fix the date of its composition. It is evident from 1 Corinthians 16:8 that Paul purposed to stay at Ephesus until Pentecost. But this must have been written and sent away before the riot raised by Demetrius (Acts 19:23–41), for immediately after that, Paul left Ephesus and went to Macedonia (Acts 20:1–2). The reason Paul purposed to remain in Ephesus until Pentecost was the success he had met with in preaching the gospel (1 Corinthians 16:9). But after the riot excited by Demetrius, this hope was in a measure defeated, and he soon left the city. These circumstances serve to fix the time when this epistle was written to the interval that elapsed between what is recorded in Acts 19:22-23. This occurred about A.D. 56 or 57. Pearson and Mill place the date in the year 57; Lardner, in the spring of the year 56.

It has never been doubted that Paul was the author of this epistle. It bears his name, has internal evidence of having been written by him, and is ascribed to him by the unanimous voice of antiquity. It has been made a question, however, whether this was the first letter Paul wrote to them or whether he had previously written an epistle to them which is now lost. This inquiry has been caused by what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5:9: I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators. Whether he there refers to another epistle, which he wrote to them before this and which they had disregarded, or to the previous chapters of this epistle, or to a letter to some other church which they had been expected to read, has been made a question. This question will be considered in the note on that verse.

IV.—THE OCCASION ON WHICH THIS EPISTLE WAS WRITTEN

It is evident that this epistle was written in reply to one that had been addressed by the church at Corinth to Paul: Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me (1 Corinthians 7:1). That letter had been sent to Paul while at Ephesus by the hands of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, who had come to consult with him respecting the state of the church at Corinth (1 Corinthians 16:17–18). In addition to this, Paul had heard various reports of certain disorders that had been introduced into the church at Corinth and which required his attention and correction. Those disorders, it seems, as was natural, had not been mentioned in the letter they sent to him, but he had heard of them incidentally from some members of the family of Chloe (1 Corinthians 1:11). They pertained to the following subjects:

1. The divisions that had arisen in the church from the popularity of a teacher who had excited great disturbance (1 Corinthians 1:12–13). Probably this teacher was a Jew by birth, and not improbably of the sect of the Sadducees (2 Corinthians 11:22); and his teaching might have been the reason why, in the epistle, Paul entered so largely into the proof of the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead (1 Corinthians 15).

2. The Corinthians, like all other Greeks, were greatly in danger of being deluded and carried away by subtle philosophy and dazzling eloquence. It is not improbable that the false teacher there had taken advantage of this, making it an occasion for exciting parties, creating prejudice against Paul, and undervaluing his authority because he made no claim to these endowments. It was important, therefore, for Paul to show the true nature and value of their philosophy and the spirit that should prevail in receiving the gospel (1 Corinthians 1:18–31; 1 Corinthians 2–3).

3. Paul's authority as an apostle had been called in question, quite likely by the false teacher or teachers who had caused the parties that had originated there. It became necessary, therefore, for him to vindicate his authority and show by what right he had acted in organizing the church and in the directions he had given for its discipline and purity (1 Corinthians 4; 1 Corinthians 9).

4. A case of incest had occurred in the church which had not been made the subject of discipline (1 Corinthians 5). This case was a flagrant violation of the gospel. Yet, it is not improbable that it had been palliated or vindicated by the false teachers; and it is certain that it excited no shame in the church itself. Such cases were not regarded by the dissolute Corinthians as criminal. In a city dedicated to Venus, the crimes of licentiousness had been openly indulged, and this was one of the sins to which they were particularly exposed. It became necessary, therefore, for Paul to exert his apostolic authority, remove the offender in this case from the communion of the church, and make him an example of the severity of Christian discipline.

5. The Corinthians had evinced a litigious spirit, a fondness for going to law and for bringing their cases before heathen tribunals, to the great scandal of religion, instead of endeavoring to settle their difficulties among themselves. The apostle had been informed of this, and this also called for his authoritative interposition (1 Corinthians 6:1–8).

6. Erroneous views and practices had arisen, perhaps under the influence of the false teachers, on the subject of temperance, chastity, and so on. The Corinthian Christians, from their former habits and the customs of their countrymen, were particularly exposed to the vices of intemperance, licentiousness, and gluttony. Those vices had been judged harmless and had been freely indulged in. It is not improbable that the apostle's views had been ridiculed as unnecessarily stern, severe, and rigid. It became necessary, therefore, to correct their views and to state the true nature of Christian requirements (1 Corinthians 6:8–19).

7. The apostle, having thus discussed those things of which he had incidentally heard, proceeds to notice particularly the things respecting which they had consulted him by letter. Those were:

   1. Marriage, and the duties in regard to it in their circumstances.

   2. The eating of things offered to idols (1 Corinthians 8). To enforce his views on the duty of abstaining from the use of certain food if it was an occasion of offense, he shows them (1 Corinthians 9) that it was the great principle on which he had acted in his ministry. He was not imposing on them anything he did not observe himself. Though he had full authority as an apostle to insist on a support in preaching, yet for the sake of peace and the prosperity of the church, he had voluntarily relinquished his rights and endeavored by all means to save some (1 Corinthians 9).

      By this example, he seeks to persuade them to a course of life as far as possible from gluttony, fornication, and self-indulgence, and to assure them that although they had been highly favored, as the Jews had also been, yet like them they might also fall (1 Corinthians 10:1–12). These principles he illustrates by reference to their joining in feasts and celebrations with idols and the dangers to which they would subject themselves by doing so. He concludes that it would be proper in those circumstances wholly to abstain from partaking of the meat offered in sacrifice to idols, if it were known to be such. This was to be done on the principle that no offense was to be given. And thus the second question referred to him was disposed of (1 Corinthians 10:13–33).

      In connection with this, and as an illustration of the principle on which he acted and on which he wished them to act—that of promoting mutual edification and avoiding offense—he refers (1 Corinthians 11) to two other subjects: one, the proper relation of the woman to the man and the general duty of her being in subjection to him (1 Corinthians 11:1–16); and the other, a far more important matter, the proper mode of celebrating the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 11:17–34).

      He had been led to speak of this, probably, by the discussion to which he had been invited on the subject of their feasts. The discussion of that subject naturally led to the consideration of the much more important subject of their mode of celebrating the Lord's Supper. That had been greatly abused for purposes of riot and disorder, an abuse that had grown directly out of their former views and habits in public festivals. Those views and habits they had transferred to the celebration of the Eucharist. It became necessary, therefore, for the apostle to correct those views, state the true design of the ordinance, show the consequences of an improper mode of celebration, and endeavor to reform them in their observance of it (1 Corinthians 11:17–34).

   3. Another subject that had probably been submitted to him in the letter was the nature of spiritual gifts, the design of the power of speaking with tongues, and the proper order to be observed in the church on this subject. These powers seem to have been imparted to the Corinthians in a remarkable degree and, like most other things, had been abused for the promotion of strife and ambition, for pride in their possession, and for irregularity and disorder in their public assemblies. The apostle discusses this whole subject (1 Corinthians 12–14).

      He states the design of imparting this gift, the use that should be made of it in the church, the necessity of due subordination in all the members and officers. In a chapter unequaled in beauty in any language (1 Corinthians 13), he shows the inferiority of the highest of these endowments to a kind catholic spirit—to the prevalence of charity—and thus endeavors to allay all contentions and strifes for ascendency by the prevalence of the spirit of LOVE. In connection with this (1 Corinthians 14), he reproves the abuses that had arisen on this subject, as he had done on others, and seeks to repress all disorders.

8. A very important subject the apostle reserved for the close of the epistle—the resurrection of the dead (1 Corinthians 15). Why he chose to discuss it in this place is not known. It is quite probable that he had not been consulted on this subject in the letter that had been sent to him.

   It is evident, however, that erroneous opinions had been entertained on the subject and probably inculcated by the religious teachers at Corinth. The philosophic minds of the Greeks, we know, were much disposed to deride this doctrine (Acts 17:32), and in the Corinthian church, it had been either called in question or greatly perverted (1 Corinthians 15:12).

   That the same body would be raised up had been denied. The doctrine that came to be believed was probably simply that there would be a future state, that the only resurrection was the resurrection of the soul from sin, and that this was past (Compare 2 Timothy 2:18).

   The apostle had not taken up this subject before, probably because he had not been consulted on it and because it would find a more appropriate place after he had reproved their disorders and answered their questions. After all those discussions, after examining all the opinions and practices that prevailed among them, it was proper to place the great argument for the truth of the religion they all professed on a permanent foundation and to close the epistle by reminding them and proving to them that the religion they professed, and which they had so much abused, was from heaven. The proof of this was the resurrection of the Savior from the dead. It was indispensable to hold that in its obvious sense; and holding that, the truth of their own resurrection was demonstrated, and the error of those who denied it was apparent.

9. Having finished this demonstration, the apostle closes the epistle (1 Corinthians 16) with some miscellaneous directions and salutations.

The remainder of the Introductory Notes and Information on Verse 1 is located in the commentary on 1 Corinthians 1:2.

Introductory Notes Continued from Verse 1... (At the end of the Introduction, see Verse Notes for 1 Corinthians 1:1–2)

V. — DIVISIONS OF THE EPISTLE

The divisions of this epistle, as of the other books of the Bible, into chapters and verses, are arbitrary and often not ideally made. See the Introduction to the Notes on the Gospels. Various divisions of the epistle have been proposed to present a proper analysis to the mind. The division submitted here is one that arises from the previous statement of the scope and design of the epistle and will furnish the basis of my analysis. According to this view, the body of this epistle may be divided into three parts, namely:

1. The discussion of irregularities and abuses prevailing in the church at Corinth, of which the apostle had incidentally learned by report, chapters 1–6.

2. The discussion of various subjects that had been submitted to him in a letter from the church, and of points that grew out of those inquiries, chapters 7–14.

3. The discussion of the great doctrine of the resurrection of Christ—the foundation of human hope—and the demonstration arising from that doctrine that the Christian religion is true, and the hopes of Christians well founded, chapter 15. (See the "Analysis" prefixed to the Notes.)

VI. — THE MESSENGERS BY WHOM THIS EPISTLE WAS SENT TO THE CHURCH AT CORINTH, AND ITS SUCCESS

It is evident that Paul felt the deepest concern for the state of things in the church at Corinth. Apparently, as soon as he had heard of their irregularities and disorders through the members of the family of Chloe (1 Corinthians 1–2), he had sent Timothy to them, if possible, to repress the growing dissensions and irregularities (1 Corinthians 4:17). In the meantime, the church at Corinth wrote to him to ascertain his views on certain matters submitted to him (1 Corinthians 7:1); and the reception of this letter gave him the opportunity to address at length the subject of their disorders and difficulties.

Yet he wrote the letter under the deepest concern about the manner of its reception and its effect on the church: For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you with many tears, etc. (2 Corinthians 2:4). Paul had another object in view which was dear to his heart, and which he was diligently working to promote: the collection he proposed to take up for the poor and afflicted saints at Jerusalem. (See Barnes on Romans 15:25).

This object he wished to press at this time on the church at Corinth (1 Corinthians 16:1–4). Therefore, to ensure the success of his letter and to facilitate the collection, he sent Titus with the letter to the church at Corinth, with instructions to have the collection ready (2 Corinthians 7:7–8, 13, 15). Titus was requested to finish this collection (2 Corinthians 8:6). With Titus, Paul sent another brother, perhaps a member of the church at Ephesus (2 Corinthians 12:18), a man whose praise, Paul says, was in all the churches, and who had already been designated by the churches to carry the contribution to Jerusalem (2 Corinthians 8:18–19).

By turning to Acts 21:29, we find it incidentally mentioned that Trophimus an Ephesian was with Paul in Jerusalem, and undoubtedly this was the person designated here. This is one of the undesigned coincidences between Paul's epistle and the Acts of the Apostles, of which Dr. Paley has made so much use in his Horae Paulinae in proving the genuineness of these writings.

Paul did not deem it necessary or prudent for him to go to Corinth himself but chose to remain in Ephesus. The letter to Paul (1 Corinthians 7:1) had been brought to him by Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (1 Corinthians 16:17); and it is probable that they accompanied Titus and the other brother who bore Paul's reply to their inquiries.

The success of this letter was all that Paul could desire. It had the effect of repressing their growing strife, restraining their disorders, producing true repentance, and removing the person who had been guilty of incest in the church. The whole church was deeply affected by his reproofs and engaged with hearty zeal in the work of reform (2 Corinthians 7:9–11).

The authority of the apostle was recognized, and his epistle read with fear and trembling (2 Corinthians 7:15). The act of discipline he had required for the incestuous person was inflicted by the whole church (2 Corinthians 2:6). The collection he had desired (1 Corinthians 16:1–4), and regarding which he had boasted of their liberality to others and expressed the utmost confidence that it would be liberal (2 Corinthians 9:2–3), was taken up according to his wishes. Their disposition on the subject was such as to bring him great satisfaction (2 Corinthians 7:13–14).

However, Paul was not aware of the success of his letter, nor of their disposition to take up the collection, until he had gone into Macedonia, where Titus came to him and gave him information of the happy state of things in the church at Corinth (2 Corinthians 7:4–7, 13). Never was a letter more effectual than this was, and never was authority in discipline exercised in a more effective and successful way.

VII. — GENERAL CHARACTER AND STRUCTURE OF THE EPISTLE

The general style and character of this epistle are the same as in the other writings of Paul. See Introduction to the Epistle to the Romans. It displays the same strong and robust style of argument and language, the same structure of sentences, the same rapidity of conception, the same overpowering force of language and thought, and the same characteristics of temper and spirit in the author.

The main difference between the style and manner of this epistle and the other epistles of Paul arises from the scope and design of the argument. In the Epistle to the Romans, his object led him to pursue a closely reasoned and connected argument. In this epistle, a large portion is occupied with reproof, and it provides an occasion to consider at once the authority of an apostle and the spirit and manner in which reproof is to be administered.

The reader of this epistle will inevitably be struck by the fact that it was no part of Paul's character to show indulgence to sin, that he had no design to flatter, that he neither "cloaked nor concealed transgression," and that in the most open, firm, and direct manner possible, it was his purpose to rebuke them for their disorders and to repress their growing irregularities.

At the same time, however, there is full opportunity for the display of tenderness, kindness, love, charity, and for Christian instruction—an opportunity for expressing the deepest feelings of the human heart—an opportunity which Paul never allowed to pass unimproved. Amidst all the severity of reproof, there is the love of friendship; amidst the rebukes of an apostle, the entreaties and tears of a father. And here we contemplate Paul, not merely as the profound reasoner, not simply as a man of high intellectual endowments, but as showing the feelings of a man and the sympathies of the Christian.

Perhaps there is less difficulty in understanding this epistle than the Epistle to the Romans. A few passages indeed have perplexed all commentators and are to this day not understood. See 1 Corinthians 5:9; 1 Corinthians 11:10; 1 Corinthians 15:29.

But the general meaning of the epistle has been much less the subject of differing interpretations. The reasons have probably been the following:

1. The subjects here are more numerous, and the discussions more brief. There is, therefore, less difficulty in following the author than where the discussion is lengthy, and the manner of his reasoning more complicated.

2. The subjects themselves are far less abstruse and profound than those introduced into the Epistle to the Romans. There is, therefore, less liability to misconception.

3. The epistle has never been made the subject of theological warfare. No system of theology has been built on it, and no attempt made to press it into the service of abstract dogmas. It is mostly of a practical character; and there has been, therefore, less room for contention regarding its meaning.

4. No false and unfounded theories of philosophy have been attached to this epistle, as have been to the Epistle to the Romans. Its simple sense, therefore, has been more obvious; and no small part of the difficulties in the interpretation of that epistle are absent from this one.

5. The apostle's design has somewhat varied his style. There are fewer complicated sentences and fewer parentheses—less that is abrupt and broken, and elliptical—less that is rapid, mighty, and overpowering in argument. We see the point of a reproof at once, but we are often greatly embarrassed in a complicated argument. The fifteenth chapter, however, for tightness and strength of argument, for beauty of language, for tender pathos, and for commanding and powerful eloquence, is probably unsurpassed by any other part of the writings of Paul, and unequaled by any other composition.

6. It may be added that there is less in this epistle that opposes the natural feelings of the human heart and that humbles the pride of the human intellect than in the Epistle to the Romans. One great difficulty in interpreting that epistle has been that the doctrines relate to those high subjects that rebuke the pride of man, demand prostration before his Sovereign, require the submission of the understanding and the heart to God's high claims, and throw down every form of self-righteousness.

   While substantially the same features will be found in all the writings of Paul, yet his purpose in this epistle led him to dwell less on those topics than in the Epistle to the Romans. The result is that the heart more readily acquiesces in these doctrines and reproofs, and the general strain of this epistle; and as the heart of man has usually more agency in the interpretation of the Bible than the understanding, the obstacles in the way of a correct exposition of this epistle are proportionately fewer than in the Epistle to the Romans.

The same spirit, however, which is required for understanding the Epistle to the Romans, is demanded here. In all Paul's epistles, as in all the Bible, a spirit of candor, humility, prayer, and industry is required. The knowledge of God's truth is to be acquired only by toil and candid investigation. The mind that is filled with prejudices is rarely enlightened. The proud, unhumbled spirit seldom receives benefit from reading the Bible or any other book. He acquires the most complete and the most profound knowledge of the doctrines of Paul, and of the Book of God in general, who comes to the work of interpretation with the most humble heart and the deepest sense of his dependence on the aid of that Spirit by whom originally the Bible was inspired. For the meek will he guide in judgment, and the meek will he teach his way (Psalms 25:9).

END OF Introductory Notes:

Verse 1. Paul, called to be an apostle. See Barnes on Romans 1:1.

Through the will of God. Not by human appointment or authority, but in accordance with the will of God and His command. That will was made known to him by the special revelation granted to him at his conversion and call to the apostleship (Acts 9). Paul often refers to the fact that he had received a direct commission from God and that he did not act on his own authority. Compare Galatians 1:11-12; 1 Corinthians 9:1–6; 2 Corinthians 11:22–33; 2 Corinthians 12:1–12. There was a special reason why he commenced this epistle by referring to the fact that he was divinely called to the apostleship. It arose from the fact that his apostolic authority had been called in question by the false teachers at Corinth. That this was the case is apparent from the general strain of the epistle, from some particular expressions (2 Corinthians 10:8–10), and from the fact that he takes such great pains throughout the two epistles to establish his Divine commission.

And Sosthenes. Sosthenes is mentioned in Acts 18:17 as the chief ruler of the synagogue at Corinth. He is there said to have been beaten by the Greeks before the judgment seat of Gallio because he was a Jew, and because he had joined with the other Jews in arraigning Paul, and had thus produced disturbance in the city. See Barnes on Acts 18:17.

It is evident that at that time he was not a Christian. When he was converted, or why he left Corinth and was now with Paul at Ephesus, is unknown. Why Paul associated him with himself in writing this epistle is not known. It is evident that Sosthenes was not an apostle, nor is there any reason to think that he was inspired. Some circumstances are known to have existed respecting Paul's manner of writing to the churches, which may explain it:

1. He was accustomed to employ an amanuensis or scribe in writing his epistles, and the amanuensis frequently expressed his concurrence or approbation in what the apostle had dictated. See Barnes on Romans 16:22.

   Compare Colossians 4:18, The salutation by the hand of me Paul; 2 Thessalonians 3:17; 1 Corinthians 16:21. It is possible that Sosthenes might have been employed by Paul for this purpose.

2. Paul frequently associated others with himself in writing his letters to the churches, himself claiming authority as an apostle, and the others expressing their concurrence (2 Corinthians 1:1). Thus in Galatians 1:2, All the brethren who were with him are mentioned as united with him in addressing the churches of Galatia (Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:1).

3. Sosthenes was well known at Corinth. He had been the chief ruler of the synagogue there. His conversion would, therefore, excite a deep interest; and it is not improbable that he had been conspicuous as a preacher. All these circumstances would render it proper that Paul should associate him with himself in writing this letter. It would be bringing in the testimony of one well known as concurring with the views of the apostle and do much to conciliate those who were disaffected towards him.

Unto the church of God which is at Corinth. For an account of the time and manner in which the church was established in Corinth, see the Introduction, and See Barnes on Acts 18:1-17.

The church is called the church of God because it has been founded by His agency and was devoted to His service. It is worthy of remark that although great disorders had been introduced into that church, that there were separations and erroneous doctrines, and though there were some who gave evidence that they were not sincere Christians, yet the apostle had no hesitation in applying to them the name of a church of God.

To them that are sanctified. To those who are made holy. This does not refer to the profession of holiness but implies that they were in fact holy. The word means that they were separated from the mass of heathens around them and devoted to God and His cause. Though the word used here, hgiasmenoiv, has this idea of separation from the mass around them, yet it is separation on account of their being in fact, and not in profession merely, different from others and truly devoted to God. See Barnes on Romans 1:7.

In Christ Jesus. That is, by en the agency of Christ. It was by His authority, His power, and His Spirit that they had been separated from the mass of heathens around them and devoted to God. Compare John 17:19.

Called to be saints. The word saints does not differ materially from the word sanctified in the earlier part of the verse. It means those who are separated from the world and set apart to God as holy. The idea that Paul introduces here is that they became such because they were called to be such.

The idea in the earlier part of the verse is that this was done by Christ Jesus; here he says that it was because they were called to this privilege. He doubtless means to say that it was not by any natural tendency in themselves to holiness, but because God had called them to it.

And this calling does not refer merely to an external invitation, but it was that which was made effectual in their case, or that on which the fact of their being saints could be founded. Compare 1 Corinthians 1:9. See 2 Timothy 1:9: Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, etc.; 1 Peter 1:15; See Barnes on Romans 1:6, See Barnes on Romans 1:7; See Barnes on Romans 8:28; See Barnes on Ephesians 4:1; See Barnes on 1 Timothy 6:12; See Barnes on 1 Peter 2:9.

With all, etc. This expression shows:

1. That Paul had the same feelings of attachment to all Christians in every place; and,

2. That he expected that this epistle would be read, not only by the church at Corinth, but also by other churches. That this was the uniform intention of the apostle regarding his epistles is apparent from other places. Compare 1 Thessalonians 5:27: I charge you by the Lord, that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.Colossians 4:16: And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans. It is evident that Paul expected that his epistles would obtain circulation among the churches; and it was morally certain that they would be soon transcribed and be extensively read. The ardent feelings of Paul embraced all Christians in every nation. He knew nothing of the narrowness of exclusive attachment to sect. His heart was full of love; and he loved, as we should, all who bore the Christian name and who showed the Christian spirit.

Call upon the name of Jesus Christ. To call upon the name of any person, in Scripture language, is to call on the person himself. Compare John 3:18. See Barnes on Acts 4:12.

The expression, to call upon the name, epikaloumenoiv, to invoke the name, implies worship and prayer; and proves:

1. That the Lord Jesus is an object of worship; and

2. That one characteristic of the early Christians, by which they were known and distinguished, was their calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus, or their offering worship to Him. That it implies worship, see Barnes on Acts 7:59; and that the early Christians called on Christ by prayer, and were distinguished by that, see Barnes on Acts 7:59, and compare Barnes on Acts 1:24; Barnes on Acts 2:21; Barnes on Acts 9:14; Barnes on Acts 22:16; See Barnes on 2 Timothy 2:22.

Both theirs and ours. The Lord of all—both Jews and Gentiles—of all who profess to be Christians, of whatever country or name they might have originally been. Difference of nation or birth gives no preeminence in the kingdom of Christ, but all are on a level, having a common Lord and Savior. Compare Ephesians 4:5.

I thank my God, etc. No small part of this epistle is occupied with reproofs for the disorders that had arisen in the church at Corinth. Before proceeding, however, to the specific statement of those disorders (1 Corinthians 1:10 and following), the apostle commends them for the attainments which they had really made in Divine knowledge, and thus shows that he was disposed to concede to them all that he could.

It was no part of Paul's disposition to withhold commendation where it was due. On the contrary, as he was disposed to be faithful in reproving the errors of Christians, he was no less disposed to commend them when it could be done. .

A willingness to commend those who do well is as much in accordance with the gospel as a disposition to reprove where it is deserved; and a minister or a parent may frequently do as much positive good by judicious commendation as by reproof, and much more than by fault-finding and harsh accusation.

On your behalf. In respect to you; that God has conferred these favors on you.

For the grace of God. On account of the favors which God has bestowed on you through the Lord Jesus. Those favors are specified in the following verses. For the meaning of the word grace .

That in every thing. In every respect, or in regard to all the favors conferred on any of his people. You have been distinguished by him in all those respects in which he blesses his own children.

Ye are enriched by him . The meaning of this expression is, "you abound in these things; they are conferred abundantly upon you." By the use of this word, the apostle intends doubtless to denote the fact that these blessings had been conferred on them abundantly; and also that this was a valuable endowment, so as to be properly called a treasure. The mercies of God are not only conferred abundantly on his people, but they are a bestowal of inestimable value (Compare 2 Corinthians 6:10).

In all utterance. With the power of speaking various languages, en panti logw. That this power was conferred on the church at Corinth, and that it was highly valued by them, is evident from 1 Corinthians 14. (Compare 2 Corinthians 8:7). The power of speaking those languages the apostle regarded as a subject of thanksgiving, as it was a proof of the Divine favor to them. (See 1 Corinthians 14:5, 22, 39).

And in all knowledge. In the knowledge of Divine truth. They had understood the doctrines which they had heard, and had intelligently embraced them. This was not true of all of them, but it was of the body of the church; and the hearty commendation and thanksgiving of the apostle for these favors, laid the foundation for the remarks which he had subsequently to make, and would tend to conciliate their minds, and dispose them to listen attentively, even to the language of reproof.

Even as. kaywv. The force of this expression seems to be this: "The gospel of Christ was at first established among you by means of the miraculous endowments of the Holy Spirit. Those same endowments are still continued among you, and now furnish evidence of the Divine favor, and of the truth of the gospel to you, even as—i.e., in the same measure as they did when the gospel was first preached." The power to speak with tongues, etc. (chapter 14) would be a continued miracle, and would be a demonstration to them then of the truth of Christianity as it was at first.

The testimony of Christ. The gospel. It is here called "the testimony of Christ," because it bore witness to Christ—to his Divine nature, his miracles, his Messiahship, his character, his death, etc. The message of the gospel consists in bearing witness to Christ and his work. See 1 Corinthians 15:1–4; 2 Timothy 1:8.

Was confirmed. Was established, or proved. It was proved to be Divine, by the miraculous attestations of the Holy Spirit. It was confirmed, or made certain to their souls, by the agency of the Holy Spirit, sealing it on their hearts. The word translated confirmed, ebebaiwyh is used in the sense of establishing, confirming, or demonstrating by miracles, etc., in Mark 16:20. Compare Hebrews 13:9; Philippians 1:7.

In you. en umin. Among you as a people, or in your hearts. Perhaps the apostle intends to include both. The gospel had been established among them by the demonstrations of the agency of the Spirit in the gift of tongues, and had at the same time taken deep root in their hearts, and was exerting a practical influence on their lives.