Chapter I

Salutation, va. 1-3. Introdaotion, vs. 4-9. The diviaions which eiiatea in the Church at Corinth, vs. 10-16. Defence of the Apostle’s modo of preaching, vs. 17-81.

Introduction to the Vs. 1-9. Paitl declares himself to be a divinely appointed meeaenger of Christ, V. 1. lu this character he addresses the church at Corinth, as those who were sanctified in Christ, and called to be saints. He inolndes in his salutation all the worshippers of Christ in that vicinity, v. 2; and invokes upon them the blessings of gi-ace and peace, v, 3.

The introduction is as usual commendatory. He thanks God for the favour shown to the Corinthians; for the various ^fts by which the gospel had been confirmed am.ong them, and by which they were placed on a iull equality with the most favoured churches, vs. i~1. He expresses his ccufldence, founded on the fidehty of God, that they would bo preserved from apostasy until the day of the Lord, vs. 8, 9.

1. Paul, called (to he) an apostle of Jesus Christ throixgli the will of God, and Sosthenes (our) brother. Paul, BO called after his conversion and the commence mcnt of his labours among the Gentiles. His Jewish name was Saul, It was common for the Jewa to bear one name among their own people, and another among foreigners.

Called {to fie) an apostle, that is, appointed an apostle. The apoatleship being an office, it coold not be assumed at

f)lea8m-e. Appomtment by competent authority was absolutey indispensable. The word apostle means literally a messertger, and then a miasionary, or one sent to preach the gospel. In its strict official sense it is applied only to the immediate messengers of Chi’ist, the infallible teachers of his religion and founders of his church. In calling himself an apostle Paul claims divine authority derived immediately ii’om Christ.

Sy tlis will of ffoif, that is,, by divine authority. Paul was made an apostle neither by popular election, nor by consecration by those who were apostles before him; but by immediate appointment from God. On this point, see his explicit declaration, Gal. 1, 1.

And Sosthenea (owr) hrotlier. In the Greek it is the brother. He was a brother well known to the Corinthians, and probably one of the messengers sent by them to the apostle, or whom they knew to be with him. In Acts 18, 17 a man by this name is mentioned as the ruler of the synagogue in Corinth, and a leader of those who arraigned Paul before the judgment seat of GalHo. This identity of name is not a su& ficient proof that the person was the same, especially as the name was a conamon one. The companions of the apostles, whom he associates with himself in his salutations to the churches, are not thereby placed in the position of equality of office and authority with lie apostle. On the contrary, they are uniformly distinguished in these respects from the writer of the epistles. Thus it is “Paul the apostle,” but “Soathenes the brother;” or, “Paul the apostle and Timothy the brother,” Col. 1, 1, and elsewhere. They are associated in the salutation, not in the epistle. Very probably Sosthenea was the amanuensis of Paul in this instance, and Timothy in others.

2. Unto the clmrch of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called (to be) saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesns Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.

To the church of God. The word church is used in Scriptare aa a collective term for the people of God, consideied as called out from the world. Sometimeg it means the whole nninber of God’s people, as when it is said, Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, Eph, 6, 25, Sometimes it means the people of God aa a class, as when Paul said, he persconted the church of God, Gal. 1, 13. Sometimes it mean a the professing Christians of any one place, as when mention is made of the church in Jerusalem, Antioch, or Coiinth. Any number, however small, of professing Christians collectively considered may be called a church. Hence we heai- of the church in the Louse of Philemon, and in the house of Aquila and Priscilla, Rom, 16, 5, It is called the church of God, because it belongs to him. He selects and calls its membei-s, and, according to Acts, 20, 28, it is his, because he has bought it with hia blood.

To them that are sanctified in Christ Jeaua, This is explanatory of the preceding clauses, and teaches us the nature of the church. It consists of the sanctifled. The word (dyioto) translated to sanctify, means to cleartse. And as sin k presented under the twofold aspect of guilt and pollution, to sanctify, or to cleanse from sin, may mean either to expiate guilt by an atonement, or to renew by the Holy Ghost, It is used for expiation by sacrifice in Heb. 2, 11, 10, 14. 13, 13, and elsewhere. The word also means to render sacred by consecrating any person or thing to the service of God. In the present case afl these ideas may be united. The church consists of those whose giiOt is expiated, who are inwardly holy, and who are consecrated to God aa his peculiar people.

In Christ Jesus, that is, in virtue of union with him. It is only in him that we are pai-takers of these inestimable blessings. It is because we are in him as our head and representative, that we are justified by his lighteousness; and it ia because we are in him aa a branch is in the vine, that we ai’e purified by his Sphit.

OaUed {to be) saints, that is, by the effectual call of the Holy Spirit constituted saints. “The called” always mean the effectually called as distinguished fi’om the merely externally invited. Saints, The original word (ayios) sometimes signifies sacred, set apart to a holy use. In this sense the temple, the altar, the priests, the prophets, and the whole theocratic people, are called holy. In the New Testament the word is commonly expressive of inward purity, or consecration of the soul to God. Believers are sainta in both senses of the word; they ai’e inwardly renewed, and outwai’dly couseerated. It is not to he inferred from the fact that the apos. tlo addresses all thft nominal Christians in Corinth as saints and as sanctified in Christ Jeaaa, tEiat they were all true believera, or that those terms express nothing more than external consecration. Men are nnuornily addressed in Scripture according to their profession. If they profess to be sota, they are called saints; if they profess to he believers, they are called believers; and if they profess to be members of the church, they are addressed as really belonging to it, Thia passage teaches also, as Calvin remai’ks, the useM lesson that a body may be very corrupt both as to doctrine and practice, as such corruptions undoubtedly prevailed even in Corinth, and yet it may be properly recognized as a ohnrch of God. Locua diUgenter observandus, ne requli’amus in hoc mundo ecolesiamonmi ruga et macula carentem: aut protinus abdicemus hoc titulo quemvis coetum in quo uon omnia votis nostris respondeant.

With all that in every place call an the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. To call upon the name of any one is to invoke his aid. It is properly used for religious invocation. Compare Acts 9, li, 21, and 22, 16. Rom. 10, 12, 13. 2 Tim. 2, 22. To call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, is to invoke his aid as Christ, the Messiah predicted by the prophets, and as our almighty and sovereign possessor and ruler. It is in that sense Jesus is Lord. AU power in heaven and earth has been committed unto him; and he died and rose again that he might be the Lord of the dead and of the living; that is, that he might acquire that peculiar right of possession in his people which arises from his ha vio” purchased them with his blood. To call upon the name of Jesus as Lord is therefore to worship hiai. It is to look to him for that help which Grod only can give, AU Christians, therefore, are the worshippers of Christ. And every wncere worahipper of Christ is a true Christian. The phrase expresses not so much an individual act of invocation, as an habitual state of mind and its appropriate expresaon.

It might at first view appear from thia clause that this epistle was addressed not only to the church in Corinth, but to all the woi-shippers of Christ. This would mate it a catholic, or general epistle, which it is not. To get over this difficulty some explain the connection thus: ‘Called to be saints together with all who call upon the mime of Christ: ’ that is, the Corinthians as well as all other worshippera of Christ were called to be saints. A roferoiico to 2 Cor. 1, 1 suggests a better esplanation. It is there said, “To the church of God Tvhich is at Coriath with all the saints which are in all Achaia.” The same limitation must be supplied here. This epistle was addressed not onlj’ to the Christians in Corinth but also to all their brethren in the province of which Corinth was the oapital.

Theirs and ours. These words admit of two connections. They m be connected with the word Lord, ‘Their Lord and oura.’ There were certain persons in Corinth who clamed a peculiar relation to Christ, and said, “We ai’e of Christ;” to whom Paul said, “If any trust to himself that he is Christ’s, let him of himself think this again, as he is Christ’s, so are we Christ’s,” 2 Cor. 10, 7. It is possible that he may have intended at the very opening of his epistle, to rebuke this exclusive spirit, and to remind his readers that Ctuist is the common Lord of all who ctdl upon Lim. The position of the words however render a it more natural to imderstand the apostle to mean, “in every place, theii-s and ours.” If this be the true construction, then the sense may be, ‘In every place of worship theli-s and oui-s.’ This interpretation sui>- poses that the divisions known to exist in Coiinth had led to the separation of the people into dififerent worshipping assemblies. There is, however, not only no evidence that such extei-nal separation had occurred, but clear evidence in ch. 11, 18 to the contrary. Others understand the sense to be, ‘In every place, theirs and ours,’ i. e. ‘where they are, and where I am.* This supposes the epistle to be general. A third interpretation has been proposed. The epistle is addressed to all Christians in Coiioth and Achaia, wherever they might be. Every place ia at once theirs and ours. Their place of abode, and my place of labour.

S. Grace (be) unto you, and peace from God our
!Pather, and (from) the Lord Jesus Christ.

Grace is favour, andeace its fruits. The former includes all that is comprehended in the love of God as exercised towards sinners; and the latter all the benefits which flow fi’om that love. All good, therefore, whether providential or spiritual, whether temporal or eternal, is comprehended in these terms: jastification, adoption and sanctification, with all the benefits which either accompany or flow from them.

These infiiiito Wesaiiigs suppose an infinite source; and. as they ai-o sought no lees from Christ than from God the Father, Christ must be a divine person. It is to be remarked that God is called our Mithei; and Christ our Xord. God as God has not only created us, bat renewed and adopted iis, God in Chiist has redeemed us. He is our owner and sovereign, to whom our allegiance is immediately due; who reigna in and rulea over us, defending us from all hia and our enemies. This is the peculiar form which piety assumes under the gospel. All Christians regard God as tneir Father and Christ as their Lord. His person they love, his voice they obey, and in his protection they trust.

4. I thank my God always on your behalf, for the
grace of God wMch is given you by Jesus Christ.

Paul expresses his gratitude for the grace of 6od given to the Corinthians. The word grace, as just remarked, means favour, and then the blessings of which that fevoor is the source; just as we use the word favour sometimes for a disposition of the mind, and sometuaes for gifts; as when we apeak of receiving favours. The latter is the sense of the word in this place.

JBy Christ Jesus, or rather, in Christ Jesus. This Umits and explains the kind of favours to which the apostle refers. He renders thanks for those gifts which God had bestowed upon them in virtue of their union with Christ. The fruits of the Spirit are the blessings referred to. These inward spiritual benefits are as much gifts as health or prosperity, and are, therefore, as properly the grounds of gratitude. All virtues are graces, gifts of the graoe of God.

5. That in every thing yc are enriched by him, in
all utterance, and (ia) all Imowledge.

This verse is explanatory of the preceding. Paul gives thanks for the grace which they had received, i. e. that in every thing they were enriched. In every thing {ev iravrt), in every respect they were richly endowed with the gifts of the Spirit. In oM utterance and in (M knowledge / that is, with all the gifts of utterance and knowledge. Some were prophets, some were teachers, some had the gift of tongues. These were difleront foims of the gift of utterance. In all know-I. CORIKTHIAXS 1, 5.6.7. 1

ledffe, that is, in every kind and degree of religious knowledge. This interpretation gives a good sense, and is the one very generally adopted. The word (Aoyos) translated utterance may however be taken in the sense of -doetrine, and the word (yvwa-K) translated knowledge, in the sense of insight. The meaning would then be, that the church in Corioth was richly endowed with divine truth, and with clear apprehension or ■onderstanding of the doctrines which they had been taught. They were second to no other church either as to doctrinal knowledge or spiritual discernment. Aoyos, according to this view, ia me truth preached; ytSirt!, the truth apprehended. — Mbysb.

6. Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed
in you.

Eoen as, i. e, because, inasmuch as. They were thus enriched, because the testimony of Christ, that is, the gospel, was confirmed among them. The gospel is called the ’ testimony of Christ,’ either because it is the testimony concerning God and divine things, which Christ bore; or because it is the testimony which the apostles bore concerning Christ. Either explanation is agi-eeable to the analogy of ttie Scriptnre. Christ IS called the tme witness; and is said to have borne witness of the truth. Compare John 3, II. 32. 83. 8, 13. 14. On the other hand, the apostles are frequently called the witnesses of Christ, and ai-e said to have borae testimony concerning him. The gospel, therefore, is, in one view, the testimony wMoh Christ bore; and, in another, the testimony which the apostles bore concerning him. The former is the higher, and therefore, the better sense. It is good to contemplate the gospel as that system of truth which the eternal Logos, or Revealer, has made known.

Was confirmed in ymt. This may mean either, was fli’mly established among you; or was firmly established in yomfoith. The gospel was demonstrated by the Holy Spirit to be true, and was Hrmly settled in their conviction. This firm faith was then, as it is now, the necessary- condition of the enjoyment of the blessings by which the gospel is attended. Therefore the apostle adds,

7. So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for
the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

SticTi was their strength of faith that the gifts of the Spirit were bestowed upon them as abundantlj as npoii any other ohuroh. This connection of fth with the divine blessing is often presented in Scripture. Our Lord said to the fether who sought his Md in behalf of his demoniac child, “If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth,” Mark 9, 23. And on another occasion, “According to thy faith he it unto thee,” Matt. 9, 29. In his own country, it IS said, he did not many mighty works “because of their tmheliet;” Matt. 13, 58. The Holy Ghost, therefore, confers on men his gifts in proportion to their feith. The word (xdpurna) gifi, is used both for the ordinary and extraordinary gifts of tue Spirit; most frequently for the latter. Here it includes both classes. The Corinthians had not only the inward gifts of repentance, faith and knowledge, bat also those of raiiadea, of healing, of speaking with tongues, of prophecy, in rich abundance. No ohnrch was superior to them in these respects. The extraordinary gifts, however, seem to be principally intended. Paul’s commendation has reference to their wisdom, knowledge and miraculous gifts, rather than to their spiritual graces. Much as he foand to censure in their state and conduct, he fi-eely acknowledged their flourishing condition in many points of view.

Waiting the coming of ov/r Lord Jesua Christ, Waiting (AviKSexofiivm)?) patientli, eJjpecting, comp, 1 Pet. 3, 20, or expecting with desii’e, 1. e. longing for. Comp, Rom. 8, 19. 20. S3. The object of this patient and earnest expectation of believers is the coining (airoKaXuipa’) i. e. the revelation of our liord Jesus Christ. The second advent of Christ, so clearly predicted by himself and by his apostles, connected as it is with the promise of the resurrection of his people and the consummation of his kingdom, was the object of longing expectation to all the early Christians. So gi’eat is the glory connected with that event that Paul, in Rom. 8, 18-23, not only represents all present afflictions as trifling in comparison, but describes the whole creation as looking forward to it with earnest expectation, Comp, Phil. 3, 20, Tfit. 2, 13. So general was this expectation that Christians were characterized as those “who love his appearing,” 2 Tim. 4, 8, and as those “who wait for him,” Heb. 9, 28, Why is it that this longing for the coming of Christ is awakened in the hearts of his people? The apostle answer a this question by saying that the “first fruits of the Spirit” enjoyed by believers in this life are an earnest, It at is, a foretaste and pledge, of those blessings which they are to receive in their fulness at the second advent. The Spirit, therefore, awakens desire for that event. See Rom. 8, 23. Eph. 1, 14. The same truth is here implied. The Corinthians had received largely the gifts of the Spirit: the consequence was they waited with patience and desire for the revelation of Christ, when they should enter on that inheritance of which thosefts are the foretaste and pledge. If the second coming of Christ is to Christians of the present day less an object of desire than it was to their brethren during the apostolic age, it must be because they think the Lord is “slack concerning his promise,” and forget that with hint a thousand years is as one day.

8. Who shall also confirm you unto the end, (that
ye may be) blameless in the day of our Lord Jesua
Christ.

Who most naturally refers to God as its antecedent, because he is the prominent subject in the context; and because the reference to Christ would make the apostle say ‘Chi’iet shall confirm unto the day of Christ; ’ and because in the following verse, God is expressly mentioned. ‘Because God is faithra!, he will confii’m you,’ is the clear meanina of the passage. Besides, vocation and perseverance are, in the work of redemption, specially referred to the Father.

Shall also confirm y<M. God had not only enriched them with the gifts of the Spirit, but he would aho confirm them. The one was an assurance of the other. Those to whom God gives the renewing influence of the Spirit, he thereby pledges himself to save; for “the first fruits of the Spirit” are, as just remarked, of the nature of a pledge. They are an earnest, as the apostle says, of the fiitnre inheritance, Eph, 1, 14. 2 Cor. 1, 21. 22. Shall confirm (/SeySauuo-fi) i. e. shall make steadfast, preserve from falling. The word is used in reference to persons and things. God is said to confirm his promises, when he fulfils them, or ho acts as to prevent their failing, see Bom. IB, 8, or when he demonstrates their truth, JVTai-k 16, 20. He is said to confirm his people when he renders them steadfast in the belief and obedience of the truth, 2 Cor, 1, 21, Unto the end, may mean the end of life, or the end of this dispensa tion, i. e, to the end of the period which was to precede the advent of Christ; or it may be understood indefinitely as we 1* use the expression “final perseverance,” TTnUamaile, i. e. not arraigned or aecused. He ia unblamable against whom no accusation can be brought. In this sense it ia said “a bishop mMt bo blameless,” Titasl,6. 7. God will confirm his people so that when the day of judgment comes, which is the day of our Lord Jesus, i. c. the day of his second advent, they shall stand before him blameless, not chargeable with apostasy or any other sin. They are to be ’ holy and without blame,’ Compare 1 Thesa. 5, 23. When we remember on the one hand how great ia our guilt, and on the other, how great is our danger from without and from within, we feel that nothing but the righteousness of Chi-ist and the power of God can secure our bemg preserved and presented blameless in the day of the Lord Jesua,

9. God (is) faithful, by whom ye were called unto
the fellowship of his Son Jeans Christ our Lord.

0od ia faithful, one in whom we may confide; one who will fulfil all bis promises. The apostle’s confidence in the steadfastness and final perseverance of believe is was founded neither on the strength of their purpose to persevere, nor on any assumption that the principle of religion in their heaiis was indestructible, but simply on the fidelity of God. If God has promised to give certain persons to his Son as his inheritance, to deliver them fiom sin and condemnation and to make them pai-takera of eternal life, it is certain he will not allow them to perish. This is plain enough, but how did the apostle know that those to whom he wrote were included in the number of those given to Christ, and that the fidelity of God was pledged to their salvation? It was because they were called. Whom he calls, them he also justifies; and whom he justifies them he also glorifies, Rom. 8, 30. The coil intended IS the effectual call of the Holy Spirit, by which the soul is renewed and translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light. The only evidence of election is therefore vocation, and the only evidence of vocation, ia holiness of heai’t and life, for we ai-e called into i/i fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Compare again Rom. 8, 29, where believers are said to be “predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son.” To this they are effectnally called. They are made like Christ, FeUoioship includes union and communion. The original word (KaoKovLo) signifies paiticipation, as in 10, 16, “partioipatioii of the blood of Christ,” 2 Cor. 13, 13, “participation of the Holy Ghost.” “We are cidled to be partakers of Christ; partakers of his life, aa merabera of his body; and therefore, partakers of his character, of his sufferings here and of hia ^ory hereafter. This last idea is made specially prominent. Believers are called to be partakers of the glory of Christ, Rom. 8, 17. 23. 2 Thess. 2, 14. It ia because behovers are thus partakers of Christ, that the apostle was assured they could never perish. The person with whom believers are thus intimately united, is iAe Son of God, of the same nature, being the same in substance and equd in power and glory. He is also Jesus, a man; consequently ho is both God and man, in two distinct natures, and one person. This incarnate God, the Saviour, ia the Christ, of whom the Old Testament says and promises so much. He is also our Lord, we belong to him; he is our posseasor, our sovereign, our protector. How can they apostatize and perish who stand in thia relation to the eternal Son of God?

Of the Divisions in the Church of Corinth, Vs. 10-16.

As one of the principal objects of this epistle was to correct the evils which had arisen in the church of Corinth, the apostle adverts, first, to the divisions which there existed. He exhorts the membei-s of that chnfch to unity, v. 10. The reason of that exhortation was the information which he had received concerning their dissensions, v. 11. These divisions arose from their ranging themselves under different religioua teachers as party leaders, v. 12. The sin and folly of such divisions are manifest, in the first place, because Christ ia incapable of division. As there is one head, there can be but one body. As there is but one Christ, there can be but one church. And in the second place, because religioua teachera are not centres of Tuiity to the church. They had not redeemed it, nor did its members profess allegiance to them in baptism, v. 13. These divisions, therefore, arose, on the one hand, from a forgetfulness of the common relation which all Christians bear to Christ; and, on the other, from a misapprehension of the relation in which believers stand to their religious teachers. Paul expresses his gratitude that he had not given any occasion for such misapprehension. He had baptized so few among them, that no man could suspect him of a desire to make himself the head of the church or the leader of a party, vs. 14-16.

10. Now 1 beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but (that) ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

There is but one exhortation in thia verso, which is expressed first in general terms, “that ye all say the same thing;” and ia then explained in the negative form, “that there be no divisions among you;” and then positively, “that ye be perfectly joined together.”

By the name of <mr’ Lord Jesus Christ, i. e, out of regard to Christ, Rom. 12,1. 15,30. 2Thess. 4,12. Their reverence and love of Christ, and regard for his authority as their Lord, should induce them to yield obedience to the apostle’s exhortation. It was not out of respect to him, but out of regard to Christ they should obey. This renders obedience easy and elevating. To say the same thing [rh airrh llyav) is a phrase of frequent occurrence to express agreement. It may be so understood here, and then the foDowing clauses are explanatory. Or, it may be understood in reference to v. 12, of outward profession. ‘Do not say I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, but all say the same thing,’ The former explanation appeai-s the more natural.

And that there be no divisions among you, literally, schisms. The word {^itrjia) means, 1. A rent, as in a garment, Matt. 9, 16. 2, Difference of opinion, John 7, 43. 3, Alienation of feeling, or inward separation. 4, In its ecclesiastical sense, it is an unauthoriaed separation from, the church. The schisms which existed in Corinth were not of the nature of hostile sects refusing communion with each other, but such as may exist in the bosom of the same church, consisting in alienation of feeling and party strifes,

Jiut (that) ye he perfectly joined together. The original word (KaTajiTifd)) means to repair, or to mend, Matt. 4, 21, to nduce to place, as a dislocated limb; to render complete, or perfect (oprioi); then figuratively, to restotv or set right those in error; to prepare, to render perfect. Hence in this place the sense may be, ‘That ye be perfect,’ as the Vulgate renders it; or, ‘that ye be united,’ as in our translation; or, ‘that ye be reduced to order,’ The context shows that the idea of union is what the apostle intended. They were not to

be divided, but UDited. This unioa was to be both in mind and in Judgment (voBs and yvrnjiri). The former terra may refer either to the intellect or feelings. The latter in the New Testament always means judgment or opinion. When the “words are nnitea, the former is most naturally vmderstood of feeling, a sense in which the word mind is often used by us. The vmitj’ which Paul desired was a union in faith and love. Considermg the relation in which Christiana stand to each other as the members of Christ, dissensions among them are aa inconsistent with their character, as conflict between the members of the human body,

11. Por it hath been declared unto ne of you, my brethren, “by them (which are of the house) of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

This verse contains the reason of the foregoing exhortation. He urges them to union because be had heard they were divided. £1, those of Ohloe, whether the persona referred to were the children or domestics of Chloe is left imdetermined. Chloe was a Christian woman well known to the Corinthians; whether a member of the church in Corinth whose people had come to Ephesua where Paul was; or an Ephesian whose family had been to Coi-inth, and learned the state of things there, is a matter of conjecture. All Paul wished was ta assure the Ooi-inthians that he bad siifftcient evidence of the existence of contentions among them. This word (^iSes) strifes, vrranglings, ezplaina the nature of the schisma refen’ed to in the preceding verso. These strifes, aa appeal’s from what follows, were about their religious teachers.

13. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Chi-iat.

This explains the nature of these contentions. In almost all the apostohc churches thei’e were contentions between the Jewish and Gentile converts. As Paid was the apostle of the Gentiles, and Peter of the Jews, Gal. 2, 8, it is probable that the converta from among the Gentiles clamed Paul as their leader, and the Jewish converts appealed to the authority of Peter. It is plain from the contents of this and of the following epistle, that these contentions were fomented by ^Ise I, 2 Cor. II, 13; that these teachei-s were Hebrews, 2 Cor, 11, 22, and that they endeavnured to midennine the authority of Paul aa an apostle. The two piincipal parties ia Corinth, therefore, were Gentiles calling themaelvea the disciples of Paul, and Jews claiming to be the followers of Peter. The Gentile converts, however, were not united among themselves. While some said, we are of Paul; others sd, we are of ApoUoa. As ApoUoa was an Alexandrian Jew, distinguished for literary culture and eloquence, it is probable that the more highly educated among the Corinthian Ohristians were his peculiar followers. Apolloa ia a shortened form of Apollonius, as Silas is of Silvanus. The first governor of Egypt appointed by Alexander bore that name; and probably on that account it became in that countiy so exceedingly common. As the Juddzers objected to Paul that he was not an apostle, these followers of ApoUoa undervalued him as a preacher. He was neither a philosopher nor a rhetorician after the Grecian school. We shall find the apostle defending himself against both these classes of objections. Who those were who sd, we are of Christ, it is not so easy to determine. It is plain that they were as much to blame as the other parties mentioned. They mast therefore have claimed some peculiar relation to Christ which they denied to their fellow believers, 2 Cor. 10, 1, Whether this exclusive claim was founded, aa some suppose, on the fiict that they had themselves seen and heard Christ; or whether they asserted their superior and more intimate relation to him on some other ground, is altogether uneertn. It would appear from the frequency with which Paul speaks of certain persons in Corinth “glorying in the flesh,” and “in appearance,” that this party claimed some peculiar external relation to Christ, and tnat their views of him were “carnal,” or worldly.

13. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul ‘i

The grounds of our allegiance to Christ are, first, that he is the Christ, the Son of the Jiving God; second, that he hath redeemed ua; tMrd, that we are consecrated to him in baptism. All these grounds are peculiar to Chi-ist. To no other being in the universe do believers stand in the relation which they all sustain to their common Lord. As, therefore, there is but one Christ, but one redeemer, but one baptism, Christians cannot he divided without violating the bond which binds them to Christ and to one snother.

Is Christ divided? Of ooui’se the answer must be in the negative. As Christ is incapable of division, ae there can be but one Christ, the charch cannot be divided. It is contrary to its nature to be split into hostile parties, just ae it is contraiy to the nature of a famOy to be thus divided. As the head is one, so are the members.

Was Paid fftuoified for youf Did Paul redeem you? Were you purchased by his blood, bo as to belong to him? If not, then you are not his, and it is wrong to say, We are Paul’s. Believers bear no such relation even to inspired teachers, aa to justify their being called by their names. They are called Christians, because they are the worshippers of Christ, because they belong to him, and because they are consecrated to him.

Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? (tw to ovofio,), literally, v/nto the name, i. e. in reference to Paul, so that he should be the object of your faith and the one whose name yon were to confess. By baptism we are brought into the number of the disciples and followers of him into whose name, or in reference to whom, we ai-e baptized. As, therefore, all Christians are baptized unto Christ, and not unto the apostles, much less any uninspired teacher, it is Christ whom they should confess, and by his name they should be called.

14. 15. I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gains; lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

Althoui it was the duty of the apostles to baptize. Matt. 28, 19, yetTaul rejoiced that it bad so happened that he had administered that ordinance to only a few persons in Corinth, as thus all pretext that he was making disciples to himself, was taken away. Paul did not consider this a matter of chance, but of providential direction, and, therefore, a cause of gratitude. Crispus was the chief ruler of tho synagogue in Corinth, whose conversion is recorded in Acts 18, 8. Gains is mentioned in Rom. Ifl, 23, as the host of the apostle.

16. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas; besides I know not whether I baptized any other.

Stephanas was one of the three messengers sent to inform the apostle of the state of the church in Corinth, and to deliver the letter to which reference is made, oh. 7, 1, comp, 18, 15. 17. Paul says he baptized the household or family of Stephanas. Under the old dispensation, whenever any one professed Judaism or entered into coveoant with God as one of his people, all his children and dependents, that is, all to whom he stood in a representative relation, were included in the covenant and received circnmcision as its sign, In like manner under the gospel, when a Jew or Gentile joined the Christian church, his children received baptism and were recognized as members of the Christian church. Compare Acts 18, 15 and 33.

Besides I hnow not whether I baptized any othefr. The natare of inspiration is to be learnt from the declarations of the Scriptures and from the facts therein recorded. Fi-om these sources we learn that it was an influence which rendered its recipients infallible, but it did not render them omniscient. They were preserved from asserting error, but they were not enabled either to know or to remember all things,

Paul as defence of his manner of preaching. Vs. 17-31, The apostle having been led to mention incidentally that he bad baptized very few persons in Corinth, assigns as the reason of that fact that his great official duty was to preach the gospel. This naturally led him to speak of the manner of preaching. It was one of the objections urged against him that he did not preach “with the wisdom of words,” that is, that he did not preach the doctrines taught by human reason, which he calls the wisdom of the world. Through the remainder of this, and the whole of the following chapter, he assigns bis reasons for thus renouncing the wisdom of the world, — and resumes the subject of the divisions existing in the charch of Corinth at the beginning of the third chapter. 1. His first reason for not teaching human wisdom is that God had pronounced all such wisdom to be folly, vs. 19. 20. 3. Experience had proved the insufficiency of human wisdom to lead men to a saving knowledge of God, v. 21. 3. God had ordained the gospel to be the great means of salvation, vs. 21-25. 4, The experience of the Corinthians themselves showed that it was not wisdom nor any other human distinc. tion that secured the salvation of men. Human wisdom could neither discover the method of salvation, nor secure compli-I. CORINTHIANS 1, 16. lY. 1?

ance with its terina when revealed. They were in Christ (i. e. converted), not because they wore wiser, better, or more distiaiguished than others, but simply because Giod had chosen or called them, vs. 26-30. The design of God in all this was to humble men so that he who glories should glory in the Lord. T. 81.

17. Por Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none eifect.

J^br indicates the connection. ‘I baptized feWtor I was not sent to baptize, but to preach.’ The commission was, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” This does not mean that baptism was not included, but it does mean that baptisang was very inferior to preaching. It is subordinated in the very form of the commission, “Go ye therefore, mahe discipka of all nations, baptizing them,” &c. The main thing was to make disciples; recognizing them as euch by baptism was subordinate, though commanded. Baptism was a work which the apostles seem to have generally left to others, Acts 10, 48. During the apostolic age, and in the apostolic form of religion, truth stood immeasurably above external lites. The apostasy of the church consisted in making rites more important than truth. The apostle’s manner of speaking of baptism in this connection as subordinate to preaching is, therefore, a wonder to those who are disposed unduly to exalt the sacraments, as may be seen in Olshausen’a remarks on vs. 13-16. We must not infer from this that baptism is of little importance, or that it may be safely neglected. Although Paul conti’overted the Jewish doctrine that circumcision secured salvation and was necessary to its attainment, he nevertheless admitted that its advantages were great every way, Rom. 3, 2. And in the Old Testament it is expressly said that the uncircumcised man-ehild should be cut off from the people, i. e. deprived of the benefits of the theoeiaey. While therefore it is unscriptura! to make baptism essential to salvation or a cei-tain means of regeneration, it is nevertheless a dangerous act of disobedience to undoi-value or neglect it.

His preachmg Paul describes by saying it was “not with the wisdom of words,” (oCk ec <Toifpia Wyou). So far as the signification of these words is concerned, the meaning may be, 1. Not with skilful discourse, that is, eloquence. 2. Or, not with philosophical discom-se, that is, not in an abstract or

18 r. COEIKTHIANS 1, 11. 18.

Bpeculative manner, bo that the truth taught should be presented in a philosophical form. According to this view the docti-ino taught would still be the gospel, but the thmg rejected imd condemned would be merely the philosojjbical mode of exhibiting it. 3. The meaning may be, not with a disuourse characterized by wisdom; that is, the contents of which was human wisdom, instead of truth a revealed by God. The context Is in favour of the interpretation last mentioned. In this whole connection the apoatlo contrasts two kinds of wisdom. The one he describes as the wisdom of the world, the wisdom of men, or of the rulers of the world. By this he means human wisdom, that which has a human origm. This he pronounces to be folly, and declai’es it to be entirely incfficaeious in the salvation of men. The other bind of wisdom, he calls the wisdom of God, i. e. derived from God; the hidden wisdom, consisting in tmtha which human reason never could discover. The former he repudiates. He says, he did not come to preach the teachings of human reason, but the testimony of God. He was among them in the character, not of a philosopher, but of a witness. As in what follows the apostle argues to prove that human wisdom is folly and cannot save men, and gives that as the reason why he came preaching the doctrine of the cross, it seems plain that this is the meaning of the passage before us. ‘Christ sent me to preach, not with wise discourse, that is, not with human msdom — not as a philosopher, but as a witness.’ His preaching therefore was the simple exhibition of the truth which God had revealed.

Nest the cross of Christ should he made of none ^eet, 1. e. rendered powerless and inoperative. If Paul in preacJiing had either substitnted human wisdom for the dootrme of the cross, or had so presented that doctrine as to turn it into a philosophy, his preaching would have been powerless. It would lose its divine element and become nothing more than human wisdom, “Whatever obscui’es the cross deprives the gospel of its power.

18. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish, fooUshness; bat unto us which are saved, it is the power of God.

Ihe preaching of the cross, or, the doctrine (oAoyos) of the cross, that is, the doctrine of salvation through the crucifixion of th6 Son of God 33 a sacrifice for the sin a of men. This doctrine, though to one class, Yiz., those who are lost, i. e. those eettaiuly to perish, foolishness; yet to another class, viz., those certainly to be saved, it is the power of God. That is, it is that through which the power of God is manifted and exercised, and therefore it is divinely efficacious. AU the bearers of the gospel are divided into two classes. To the one, the doctrine of salvation through a. crucified Redeemer appears absurd. They are called “the lost,” not only because they are certainly to perish, but also because they are in a lost state while out of Christ, John 3, 18. To the other, this doctrine is divinely efficacious in producing peace and holiness. These are called “the saved,” not only because the are certainly to be saved, but also because they are now in a state of salvation. Compare 2 Cor. 2, 15.

This verse contains the reason why Christ sent the apostle to preach, and why he preached the doctrine of the cross, and not human wisdom. That reason is, because the doctrine of the cross alone is effectual to salvation. This proposition he proceeds to establish by a aeries of arguments designed to

grove that the wisdom of the world cannot save men. His rst argument is derived from the express declaration of the word of God to this effect.

19. Por it is written, I -will destroy the wisdom of the mse, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the pradent.

This is not to be considered as the citation of any one particular passage of the Old Testament, so much as an appeal to a doctrme therein clearly revealed. In a multitude of passages, and in various forms, God had taught by his prophets the insufficiency of human reason to lead men to the knowledge of the way of salvation. In Isaiah 29, 14. neai’ly the same words are used, but with a more limited application. “The wisdom of the wise,” and “the understandmg of the prudent,” are parallel expressions for the same thing.

20. Where (is) the wise? where (is) the scribe? where (is) the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

This is a challenge to the wise of eveiy class and of every nation to disprove Trhat he had said. It was too plain to bo denied that God had made foolish the wisdom of this world, i. e. he had showed it to be foolish, and dealt with it as such. Among the Jews there were three classes of learned men, distinguished by terms corresponding to those which the apostle here uses. It ia not probable, however, that Paul refers to that classification, because he is not spealdng specially of the Jews. The fii’st term (o-oiis), wise man, is probably to be taken in a general sense including that of the two following words. ‘Where is the wise, whether Jewish scribe or Grecian sophist? ‘The word seribe is the common designation of the learned class among the Jews. It was originally applied to the secretaries whose buaness it was to prepare and issue decrees in the name of the king (2 Sam. 8, 17, 20, 25. 2 Kmga 12, 10. 19, 2), Aitei-wards, and especially in the Kew Testament, it was used as the deaignalion of those learned in the law, who were charged not only with its transcription, but also with its exposition, and at times with its administration. The same title was given in many of the Asiatic states to the magistrate who presided over the senate, took charge of the laws, and who read them when necessary to the people, Acta 19, 35.

Where is the disputer? {(tv£1]tijts) inquirer, questioner, sophist,’ the appropriate designation of the Grecian philosopher. Of this world, or age. This qualification belongs to all the preceding terms. ‘Where is the wise of this world, whether scribe or sophist?^

21. Por after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to. save them that believe.

This and the following verses contain the apostle’s second argument in proof of the insufficiency of human wisdom. The argument is this: experience having shown the insufficiency of human wisdom, God set it aade, and declared it to be worthless, by adopting the foolishness of preaching as the means of salvation. This argument therefore includes two distinct proofe. First, that derived from experience; and secondly, that derived from God’s having appointed the gospel, as distinguished from human wisdom, to bo the means of

I^br ajier that. It is to be remarked that the word or in Paul’s writings very often refers to something implied but not expressed in the context; moat commonly it refers to the answer to a preceding question. It is so here. ‘Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? Se has, for, &o.’ After thai (cireiS^ properly, since. This particle, though in the Greek writers generally used of time, in the New Testament is almost uniformly used in a causal sense. This is its meaning here. ‘For, inasnrnch as, or because.’

In the wisdom of God. This means either, in the wise ordination of God, or, in the midst of the manifestation of the wisdom of God. If the former interjjretation be adopted, the meaning is, that it was a manifestation of divine wisdom to leave the world for four thousand years to test the power of human wisdom, that thus its insufficiency might be clearly demonstrated. The latter interpretation is generally adopted, and gives a better sense. ‘In the wisdom of God, that is, although surrounded by the manifestations of the divine wisdom in creation and providence, man imled to attain any saving knowledge of God.’ The world by (its ts) wisdom Icnew not God. This is not inconsistent with Rom. I, 20, where the apostle says, God’s eternal power and Godhead are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. In thii latter passage Paul speaks of the revelation which God had made of himself; in the former, of the use which men had made of that revelation. The revelation was clear, but men, through their imbeciMty and petverseness, did not comprehend it. In the midst of light they continued blind. The fault was in them, and not in the revelation. They did not like to retain God in their knowledge, Rom. 1, 28. Besides, sometimes the knowledge of God, m Scrijjtui-e, means that speculative knowledge which human reason is adequate to derive from the works of God, and which renders their idolatry iuexcusable; at other times, it means saving knowledge. Hence it is perfectly consistent to say in the former sense, that men by wisdom may attain the knowledge of God; and, in the latter sense, that they cannot attain that knowledge, Paul is here speaking of the knowledge which is connected with salvation. Such knowledge the world by wisdom had failed to secure. Therefore, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them thai believe. “The foolishness of preachiag” means the preaching of fooHshness, that is, the cross. The doctrine of the cross was foolishness in the estimation of men. God thus put to shame all human wisdom

23 I. CORINTHIAirS 1, 21. 22. 23.

by making a doctrine which the wise of this world regarded as absurd the means of salvation. This passage in its couneotion clearly teaches two great truths; first, that the cross, or the doctrine of Christ crucified, is the substance of the gospel, that in which ita vitality and power consist; and secondly, that it is the preaching, or public proclamation (K^pvyjict) of that doctrine which is the great means of salvation. To this all other means, however important, are either preparatory or subordinate. It ia to be remembered, however, that preo’^hing, in the Scriptural sense of the term, includes the inculcation of the truth, whether to an individual or to a multitude — whether by the road side, or in the school, or lecture-room, or the pulpit, Philip, as he rode in the chariot with the eunuch, “preached to him Jesus,” Acta 8, 35.

23. 33. Por the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbhng-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness.

This passage is parallel to the preceding. Since the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased Grod by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe — and since the Jews ask a sign and the Greeks seek wisdom, we preach, &c.’ That is, since human reason in all its developments, Jewish or Grecian, had failed, we preach Christ.

The Jews require, or, ask (aiTodriJ a sign.* This was characteristic of the Jews. They required external supei-nar tural evidence as the ground of theii- faith. Their constant demand was, “What sign showest thou?” Matt. 12, 39. Mai-k 8, II. John 6, 30, To this disposition our Saviour referred when he said, “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas,” Matt. 10, 4. The Greeks, on the other hand, seek after wisdom. They required rational evidence. They would receive nothing as true which they could not understand, and see the rational gi’ounds of These are types of permanent classes of men.

Bid we preach Christ er-acijled. This doctrine met the

“” Instead of ffi; others of kter dati demands of neither class. It satisfied neither the expectations of the Jews, nor the reqwementa of the Greeks. On the contraiy, it was to the Jews a stumhling-htooh. They had anticipated in the Messiah a glorious temporal prince, who should deliver and exalt their nation. To present to them one crucified as a malefactor as their Messiah, was the greatest possible insult. He was to them, therefore, a stone of stumbling and a rock of ofFonce, Rom. 9, 33. 1 Pet. 2, 8, To the Greeks this doctrine was fooHshness. Nothing in the apprehension of rationalists can be more absurd than that the blood of the cross can remove sin, promote virtue, and secure salvation; or that the preaching of that doctrine is to convert the world.

24. But unto them which are called, both Jews and
Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of
God.

The called (kXyjtoi) always mean vhe effectually called, as distinguished from those who are merely extei-nally invited. There is a twofold call of the gospel; the ono external by the word; the other internal by the Spirit. The subjects of the latter are designated “the called,” Rom. 1, 7. 8, 28. Jude 1. Rev. 17, 14. compare Isaiah 48, 12. The Jews desired’ an exhibition of power; the Greeks sought wisdom: both are found in Christ, and in the highest degree. He is the power of Gtod and the wisdom of God, In his person and work there is the highest possible manifestation both of the divine power and of the divine wisdom. And those who ai-e called not only sec, but experience this. The doctrine of Christ crucified produces effects on them wHeh nothing short of divine power can accomplish. And it reveals and imparts to them the true wisdom. It makes them divinely wise; it makes them holy j it makes them righteona; and it makes them blesRed, It does infinitely more than human wisdom could ever conceive, much less accomphsh. It has already changed the state of the intelligent umverse, and is to be the central point of influence throughout eternity, Tiiia is the doctrine which the wise of this world wish to see ignored or obscured in behalf of their speculations. Jaat as the heathen exchange the true God for bii-ds and beasts and creeping tilings, and think tbe’r” selves profound.

25. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than
men, and the weakness of God is stroBger than men.

Thia is a confirmation of what precedes. The gospel is thus effieaeiona, hecavse the lowest manifeetatioii of divine wisdom exceeds the highest results of the wisdom of men; and the lowest exercise of God’s power is more efFectnal than all human strength. Or, instead of taking the verse ia this general sense, tJie foolishness of God, may mean the gospel. The meaning then is, ‘The doctrine of the cross, though regarded as absurd and powerless, has more of power and wisdom than any thing which ever proceeded from man.’

26. For ye see your calHng, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble (are called).

The connection is not with the procoding verse but with the whole preceding context. The apostle introduces a new argument m proof of the aseleasnesa of human “wisdom. The argument is derived from their religious experience. ‘Tou see, brethren, it is not the wise who ai’e called.’

Your calling (kX^o-is) does not mean mode of life, profession, or station, as the word vooation often does with us. The Greek word is never used in this sense in the iNew Testament, unless 1 Cor, 1, 20 be am exception. It always refers to the call of God by his word and Spirit. It is to be so understood here. ‘You see, brethren, your conversion, that not many wise ai’c converted.’ In tins sense we speak of “effectual call ing.”

Wise after thejlesh, i, e, wise with human wisdom. Flesh in Scripture often means human nature. There are two kinds of wisdom, the one human, the other divine. There are, therefore, two classes of wise men; those possessing the wisdom which is from, men, and those who have the wisdom which comes from God. Few of the former class become Christians; therefore it is not by msdom that men find out God, which ia what the apostle designs to prove,

Not many mighty i. e. the great (oi Sumroi, those having, ^ueafi-K, in the sense of power and authority). The opposite class is designated as the weak or uninfluential, see Acts 25, 5. Not many noble, i. e. well-born. The converts to Christianity were not in general from the higher ranks in society.

The things which elevate man in the world, knowledge, influence, i-auk, are not the things which lead to God and salvation. As there is no verb in the original to agree with these noininativea, “the wise,” “the mighty,” “the noble,” we may either supply the simple substantive verb are: ‘Yon see your calling, not many of you are wise, or mighty, or noble; ’ or, we may supply, as in our version, tJie word called, ‘not many wise are called;’ ov, the word chosen,^ not many wise ai’o chosen, for God hath chosen, &c.’ The sense remains the same. Human distinctions are insignificant and inefficacious in the sight of God, who is sovereign in the distribution of his grace.

37. But God hath chosen the fooHsh thmgs of the world to confound the wise, and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty.

In this and the following versos the apostle asserts affirmatively what he had just stated negatively, ‘God does not choose the wise, bwt he chooses the toolish.’

The foolish things of the world, {rh. fuapa. tov Koa-fj-ov) the foolish portion of mamind. In this and in the following clauses Uie neuter is used although persons are intended, because the reference is indefinite, Grod hath chosen the foolish, the weak, the insignificant, &o. Hath chosen. It is implied in this form of expression, which is repeated for the sake of emphasis, that as, on the one hand, the wise and the great were not chosen on account of their wisdom, or greatness, so, on the other, the foolish and the weak were not cEosen on account of their want of wisdom or greatness. God chose whom he pleased. Ho chose the ignorant that he mighi confound the wise; and the weak, that he might confound the mighty. That is, that he might put them to shame, by convincing them of the little value of the things on which they prided themselves,. and by exalting over them those whom they despised.

28. And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, (yea) and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are;

Tlte base things, i. c. the base, the ignoble (ra dyti), those without family, as opposed to the noble. Things which a/rc despised, i. e. men in low condition, whom the rich and noble look upon with contempt. Things which are not, {to, //.ij Syra,) those who are entirely overlooked as though they had no existence. There is a climax hero. God has chosen not only plebeians, but of the plebeians those who were objects of coatempt, and even those below contempt, too insimnficant to be noticed at alL These, and such as these, does God choose to make kings and priests unto himself To bring to nought, (loxTapyo, literally, that he might bring to n<yught. This ia a stronger term than that used in the preceding verse, and here specially appropriate. God brings to nothing the things that are (ret oi/ra), i. e. those who make their existence known and felt, as opposed to those who are nothing. It is apparent from the dispensations of grace, that knowledge, rank, and power do not attract the favour of God, op secure for their possessors any pre-eminence or preference before him. This ehould render the exalted humble, and the humble content,

29. That no flesh should glory in his presence.

The design of God in thus dealing with men, calling the ignorant i-ather than the wise, the lowly instead of the great, is that no man should boast before him. No one can stand in his sight and attribute his conversion or salvation to his own wisdom, or birth, or station, or to any thing else by which he is favourably distinguished from his te!low-men.

30. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification and redemption.

To be in Christ Jesus is to be united to him, 1. Eepresentativehr, as we were in Adam, Rom. 6, 12-21. 1 Cor. 15, 22. 2, Vitally, as a branch is in the vine, or a member in the body, John 15, l-Y. 3. Consciously and Tolontarily by Mth, Rom. 8, 1, et passim. Of this union with Chi-ist, the apostle teaches us here, first, its origin, and secondly, its effects. As to its origm, it is of God. Of him ye are in Christ Jems. It is {ei avTov) ofbjm as the efficient cause. It is to be referred to him alone that ye are in Christ. Tour conversion or saving union with Christ is not due to yourselves; it is not be cause you are wiser, or better, or more diligent than others that you are thus distinguished. This which is the turning point in theology, and therefore in religion, is here most explicitly asserted. And it is not only asserted, but it is declared to bo the purpose of God to malce it apparent, and to force all men to acknowledge it. He so dispenses his grace as to make men see with regard to othei-s, and to acltnowledge with regard to themselves, that the fact that they are in Christ, or true Christians, is due to him and not to themselves. The effects of this union, as here stated, ai’e, that Christ is of God (dirS &wv), as the author, made unto us, 1. Wisdom. Christ is the true wisdom. He ia the Logos, the Revealer, in whom dwells all the fulness of the Godhead, and all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. No man knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son shall reveal him, John 1, 18. Union with him, therefore, makes the believer truly wise. It secures the knowledge of God, whose glory is revealed in the face of Christ, and whom to know is eternal life. All true religious knowledge is derived from Christ, and it is only those who submit to his teaching who are wise unto salvation.

2. The second effect of union with Christ, is righteousnesa and saactification (StKnioo-uiT) t< KaX dyioirjiids); these are intimately united (re «ai) as different aspects of the same thing. BiglUeousneas is that wMcli satisfies the demands of the law as a rule of justification; sanctijicatioTi, or hohaess, is that which satisfies the law as a rule of duty. Christ is both to us. He is our righteousness, because by his obedience and death he has fully satisfied the demands of justice, so that we are “the righteousness of God in him,” 2 Cor. 6, 21. When we stand before the judgment-seat of God, Chiist is our i-ighteousuesa. He answers for us; he presents his own infinite merit as the all-safiicient reason for our justification. Rom. 3, 21. 22. 5,19, Phil. 3, 9. He is also oar sanctification. His Spirit dwells in all hia people aa the Spirit of holiness, so that they are transformed into hia likeness ftora glory to glory. Wherever the Spirit dwells there are the fruits of the Spidt. Acts 26, 18. Rom. 8, 9. 10. GaL 5, 22. Eph. 2, 5. 10.

3. The third effect is redemption, i. e. deliverance from evil. This term sometimes includes all the benefits received ii’om Christ. When he is called our Redeemer he is presented aa our deliverer icroTa. guilt, from hell, from sin, fi-ora the power of Satan, fi,-om the grave. But when redemption is distinguished from justification and sanctification, it refers to the final deliverance from evil. The “day of redemption” is the day when the work of Christ shall be consummated in the pa-fect salvation of his people as to soul and body. Rom. 8, 23. Eph. 1, 14. 4, SO. Heb. 9, 12.

Those, then, who are in Christ have divine wisdom or the saving knowledge of God and of divine things; they have a righteousness which secures their justification. There is no condemnation to those that are in Christ Jesus, Rom. 8, 1. They are renewed after the image of God, and shall finally be presented without spot or blemish before the presence of his glory. And they are partakers of eternal redemption or full deliverance from all the evils of sin, and are introduced into the gloi-ious liberty of the children of God. These infinite blessings can be obted only thi-ongh Chiist. Union with him is the necessary, and the only necessary, condition of our participation of these blessings. And our union with Christ is of God. It is not of ourselves, by our own wisdom, goodness, or strength, but solely by his grace; and therefore must be sought as an unmerited favour.

31. That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

That, i. e. in order that. The design of God in mating wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption dependent on union with Christ, and union with Christ dependent, not on our merit, hut on his own good pleasui-e, is that we should glory only in him; that is, that our confidence should be in him and not in ourselves, and that all the glory of our salvation should be ascribed to him and not to us. Such being the design of God in the work of redemption, it is obvious we must conform to it in order to be saved. We must seek wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption only in Christ; and we must seek union with Chi’ist as an undeserved favour.

The passage quoted is probably Jeremiah 9, 23. 24, the sense of which is condensed. In quoting the Old Testament the apostle frequently cites the words as they stand, without so modifying them as to make them grammatically cohere with the context. As in the Septuagint, which he quotes, the imperative mood is used, the apostle here retains it, and instead of saying, ‘In order that he who glories shculd glory Jn the Lord,’ he says ‘That, He that glories Ut him glory in the Lord.’ Comp. 2, 9, Rom. 15, 3.

I. OORIHTHIANS 2, 1,