Chapter II
Continuefl his defence of Ms mode of preaohing. In ts. 1-5 he shows ihat ha acted on the prindplcs set forth in the preoedins puragraph. In vs. 6-9 he shows Ihat the gospel is the true wisdoin. The source of this knowledge, ns externally revealed and as spiritually apprehended, is the Holj Spirit vs. 10-16.
Oontinuation of Ma of Ms mode of pfsaching. Vs. 1-16. As God had determined to save men not bj’ httman wisdom but by the gospel, Paul, when he appeared in Corinth, came neither as an orator nor as a philosopher, but simply as a witness, vs. 1, 2. He had no confidence in himself, but relied for success eseluavely oa the demonstration of the Spirit, vs. 3, 4. The true fomidation of feith is not reason, but the testimony of God, V. 5.
Though what be preached was not the wisdom of men, it was the wisdom of God, undiscoverable by human reason, vs. 6-9. The revealer of this divine wisdom is the Holy Ghost, he alone being competent to make this revelation, because he only knows the secret pui’poses of God, vs. 10-13. In coramunicating the knowledge thus derived from the Spirit, the apostle used words taught by the Spirit, v, 13. Though the knowledge communicated was divhie, and although eommimicated in appropriate language, it was not received by the natural man, because the things of the Spirit can be discerned only by the spiritual, vs. 14-16.
1. And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
And I^ i. e. aocordingly I, ‘In accordance with the clearly revealed purpose of God to reject the wisdom of the world and to make the cross the means of salvation.’
Excellency of speech or of wisdom. As speech and wisdom {Aoyos and rroux) are here distinguished, the former probably refers to the manner or form, and the latter to the matter of his preaching. It was neither as a rhetorician nor as a philosopher that he appeared among them. This clause may “be connected oithor with the word cawjc, ‘I came not with, excellency of speech; ’ or with the word declaring, ‘I came not declaring with excellency of speech, <fec.’ Tte former mode ia generally preferred, not only because of the position of the words in the sentence, hut also beoanse of the sense. Paul does not mean to say merely that ho did not declare the testimony of God m a rhetorical or philosophical manner; but that what he declared was not the wisdom of men, but the revelation of God,
The testimony of God taaj mean either the testimony which Paul bore concerning God, or God’s own testimony, 1. e. what God had revealed and testified to be tme. “The testhnony of God” is, in this sense, the gospel, as in 2 Tim, 1, 8. The latter interpretation best suits the connection, as throughout these chapters Paul contrasts what reason teaches with what God teaches. He did not appear as a teacher of haman wisdom, but as announcing what God had revealed.
3. For I determined not to know any thing *
among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
For is confirmatory, ‘I came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, for I determined, &c.’ The negative pai’tiole in this sentence may be connected either with the word to know, ‘I determined not to know;’ or with the word determined, ‘I did not determine, i. e. I had no intention or purpose.’ The position of the words (ov yap iKptva) ia in fiiTOur of the latter interpretation. The meaning in either case is the same.
Jesvs Christ, and him emoifed. Paul’s only design in going to Corinth was to preach Christ; and Christ not iS a teacher, or as an example, or as a perfect man, or as a new starting point in the development of the race — all this would be mere philosophy; but Christ as cfmcified, i. e, as dying for our sins. Christ as a propitiation was the burden of Paul’s preaching. It has been well remarked that tTesws Christ refers to the person of Christ, and Mm crucified, to his work; which constitute the sum of the gospel.
3. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear,
and in much trembhng,
TliB common teit here m to3 s;’S*’rai tL Tha toC ia omitted In tie MSS., A, B. C. D. E. F, G. Tho reading adopted in the recent editions ia t elSii/ai.
I came to you, iysvofkriv irpo -u/iSs, I came to yon and was with you, see John 1, 2. The weakness of which he here speaks was not bodily weakne; for although he elsewhere speaks of himself as weak in body, 2 Cor. 10, 10, and aa suffering under bodily infirmity, Gal. 4, 14, yet here the whole context shows he refers to his state of mind. It was not in the consciousness of streneth, self-confident and self-relying, that he appeared among them, but aa oppressed with a sense of his weakness and insufficiency. Ho had a work to do which ho felt to be entirely above Ins powers.
in fear and tr&mMing, i. e. in anne, or solicitude of mind arising out of a sense of his insufBciency, and of the infinite importance of his wort, 2 Cor. 1, 15. Phil. 2, 12. Eph. 6, 5.
4. And ray speech and my preaching (was) not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power.
My speech and preaching (Xoyos and npvyfia). If these terms are to be distinguished, the former may refer to his private, and the latter to bis pubUo instructions; or, the former is general, including all modes of address, and the latter specific, limited to public discourse. ‘My instructions in general, and my public preaching in particulaT,’ Both terms, however, may designate the same thing under different aspects.
His mode of preaching is described, first, negatively, and then positively. It was not with the entiomg words of man’s wisdom, 1. e. the persuasive words which human wisdom would suggest. In his endeavours to bring men to the obedience of the faith, he did not rely upon his own skill in argument or persuasion. This is the negative statement. Positively, his preaching was in (or with, h’; the preposition is the same in both clauses, though rendered by our translators in the former, with, and in the latter, in) the detnonstraPion of the Spirit and of power. This may mean, ‘The demonstration of the powerful Spirit;’ or, ‘The demonstration of the Spirit and of (miraculous) power; ’ refeiTing to the twofold evidence or proof of the gospel, viz., the internal influence of the Spirit, and the external evidence of miracles. The word (Swafits), rendered power, often means miraculous power, but as such cannot be its meaning in the following verse, it is not probable it was intended to have that sense here. The phrase probably means ‘The demonstration of which the Spirit is the author, and which is characterized by power; ’ so that the sense iSj the powerful demonstration, of the Spirit.
Demonstration (riiro’Setw) setting forth, exhibition of proof, Paul relied, therefore, for success, not on his skill in argument or persuasion, nor upon any of the resources of human wisdom, but on the testimony which the Spirit bore to the truth. The Holy Ghost demonstrated the gospel to bo tme.
5. That yourfaitli should not stand in the wisdom
of men, but in the power of God.
That, i. e. in order that. The dgn of the apostle in acting as stated in the preceding verse, was that the faith of his bearers might not rest upon human reason, but on the testimony of God. It might have been easy for him to argue the Corinthians into a conviction of the truth of the Gospel, by appealing to its superiority to heathenism and to the evidence of its divine origin afforded by prophecy and miracles. He might have exhibited the folly of idolatiy, and the absurdity of pagan rites and ceremonies, and convinced them of the histoncS truth of Christianity. The conviction thus produced would be rational and important; but it would not be saving fth. Faith founded on such evidence is merely speculative. The true foundation of th, or rather, the foundation of true Mtb, is the power of God. This is explained by what he had before called “the demonstration of the Spiiit.” That exerdse of divine power, therefore, to which he refers as the ground of faith, is the powerful operation of the Spirit, bearmg witness with and by the truth in our hearts. A faith which is founded on the authority of the church, or upon arguments addressed to the understanding, or even on the moral power of the truth as it affects the natural conscience, such as Felix had, is unstable and inoperative. But a feith founded on the demoitration of the Spirit is abiding, infallible, and works by love and purifies the heai-t.
In these verses, therefore, we are taught, 1. That the profer method to convert men in any commmiity. Christian or ‘agan, is to preach or set forth the truth concerning the person and work of Christ. Whatever other means are used must be subordinate and auxiliaiy, designed to remove ohstacles, and to gain access for the troth to the mind, just as the ground is cleared of weeds and brambles in order to prepare it for the precious seed. 2, Tho proper state of mind in which to preach the gospel is the opposite of self-ooofidenee or carelessness. The gospel should be preached with a sense of weakneBS and with great anxiety and solicitude. 3. The success of the gospel does not depend on the skill of the preacher, but on the demonstration of the Spirit. 4. The foundation of saving faith is not reason, i. e. not arguments addressed to the understanding, but the power of God as exerted with and by the truth upon the heart.
6. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect; yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought.
Paul had in the procedmg chapter, vs. 17-31, asserted the insufficiency of human wisdom, and in vs. 1-5 of this chapter, he had said he was not a teacher of human wisdom. Was it to be inferred from this that he despised knowledge, that he waa an iQiterate contemner of letters, or that he taught nonsense? Far from it; he taught the highest wisdom. It is pWn from this whole discussion, that by the wisdom of the world, Paul means that knowledge of Gtod and divine things which men derive from reason. It is also plain that what he says of tho worthlessness of that knowledge has reference to it as a means of salvation. The objection urged against him was, that he did not teach philosophy. His answer is, j)hilosophy cannot save men. Whatever may be its value within its own sphere and for its own ends, it is worse than nseless as a substitute for the gospel. He was not for banisliing philosophy from the schools, but from the pulpit. Let the dead buiy the dead; but do not let, them pretend to impai’t life.
JTowbeit, nevertheless, i. e. ’ although we do not teach human wisdom, we teach the trae wisdom.’ Among them that are perfect {iv toU reAEiois), i. e. the mature, the full-grown, the competent. The iv here is not redundant as though the sense were to the perfect; but has ite proper force among. Among one class of men the doctrine which he preached was regarded as foolishness, but among another it was seen to be divine wisdom. Who are meant by the perfect? There are two answers to this question. Some say they were the advanced or mature Christians as distinguished from the babes in Christ. Others say, they were believers as opposed to unbelievers; those taught by the Spirit and thus enabled to understand the
Si 1. CORIKTHIANS 2, 6.
truth, as opposed to the unrenewed. According to this view, Paul lueaiis to say that the gospel, although foolishness to the Greek, was the highest wisdom in the estimation of the truly enlightened. In favour of this view of the passage, and in opposition to the other, it may be argued, 1. That those who regarded Paul’s doctrine as foolishneas were not the babes in Christ, but the unrenewed, “the wise of this world;” consequently those to whom it was wisdom were not advanced Christians, but believers as such. Throughout the whole context, the opposition is between “the called” or converted, and the unconverted, and not between one class of believers and another class. 2. K “the perfect” here means advanced Christians as distinguished from babes in Christ, then the wisdom which Paul preached was not the gospel as such, but its higher doctrines. But this cannot be, because it is the doctrine of the cross, of Christ crucified, which he declares to be the power of God and the wisdom of God, 1, 24. And the description given in the following part of this chapter of the wisdom here intended, refers not to the higher doctrines of the gospel bat to the gospel itself. The contrast is between the wisdom of the world and the wisdom of God, and not between the rudimental and the higher doctrines of the gospel. Besides, what are these higher doctrines which Paul preached only to the 61ite of the church? No one knows. Some say one thing, and some another. But there are no higher doctrines than those taught in this epistle and in those to the Romans and Ephesians, all addressed to the mass of the people. The New Testament makes no distinction between (jTHTTi! and yvuKTvi) higher and lower doctrines. It does indeed speak of a distinction between milk and strong meat, but that is a distinction, not between kinds of doctrine, but between one mode of instruction and another. In oateohiama designed for children the church pours oat all the treasures of her knowledge, but in the form of milk, i, e. in a form adapted to the weakest capacities. For all these reasons we conclude that by “the perfect” the apostle means the com.petent, the people of God as distinguished fcora. the men of the world; and by wisdom, not any higher doctrines, but the simple gospel, which is the wisdom of God as distinguished from the wisdom of men.
The apostle describes this wisdom, first negatively, by saying it is not tTte wisdom of this world, or, wisdom not of this world, i. e. it belongs not to the world, and is not attuned by the men of the world. Nor of the princes of this world. This designation includes all who take the first rank among men; m.en of influence, whether for their wisdom, Hrth, or power. He does not refer exclusively to magistrates, or princes, in the restricted sense of that term. This seem a plain, from the connection, and from what follows in v. 8. Who come Co nought, i. e. whom it is God’s purpose to confound, as taught above, 1, 28.
7. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, (even) the hidden (wisdom), which God ordained before the world unto our glory.
Having m v. 6 stated what this wisdom is not, he here states what it is. It is, flrat, the wisdom of God; secondly, it is mysterious, or hidden; thirdly, it is a system of truth whiob God from eternity had determined to reveal for the salvation of his people. In other words, it ia the revelation of the coun eels of eternity in reference to the redemption of man.
The wisdom of God, i. e. the wisdom derived irom God; which he has revealed, as distinguished from any form of knowledge of human origin. Jn a mystery. The word mystery always means something into which men must be initiated; eometbing undiscoverable by human reason. Whether its being undiscoverable ai-ises from if« lying in the future, or because hid in the unrevealed purposes of G«d, or from its own nature as beyond our comprehension, is not determined by the signification of the word, but is to be learned from the context. The most natural connection of the word a here is with what precedes, “-wisdom m a mystery,” for mysterious, or hidden wisdom, as is immediately explained by what follows. As there is no connecting article (between <TQ^la.v and ftvjTTipi’ji) in the original, some prefer comiecting this clause with the verb. ‘We speak in a mystery,’ i. e. as declaring a mystery or matter of revelation.
Which God before the world (jrpo Tun- ouovtoi’), before the ages, i. e. before tmie, or from eternity, preordained to our glory — predetermined in reference to our glory. The word glory is often used for all the benefits of salvation. It includes all the excellence and blessedness which Christ has secured for his people, Rom. 6, 2. The idea that the scheme of redemption, which the apostle here calls the wfedom of God, was from eternity formed in the divine mind, &■ out of the reach, of human penetration, and haa under the gospel Tjeen made known for the salvation of men, is one often presented by the apostle, Rom. 16, 25. 26. Eph. 3, 9.
8. Which none of the princes oE this world knew: for bad they known (it), they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Which refers to wisdom, and not to ffory; fonner, and not the latter, is the subject of discourse. ‘Which wisdom none of the princes, i. e. the great men, of this world knew.’ The reference is here principsJly to the rulers of the Jews, the authors of the crucifixion of Christ, and the representatives of the class to which they belonged. It was the world in its princes who rejected Cbnst.
Liyfd of glory is a title of divinity. It means, possessor of divine excellence, “Wbo is the Kmg of glory? The Lord of hosts, he is the Kbg of glory,” Ps. 24, 10. Acts Y, 2. James 2, 1. Eph. 1, IV. The pei-son crucified, therefore, was a divine person. Hence the deed was evidence of inconceivable blindness and wictedness. It was one that could only be done through ignorance, “And now, brethren,” said the apostle Peter to the Jews, “I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers,” Acta 3, 17. The fact that the princes of this world were so blind as not to see that Christ was the Lord of glory, Paul cites as proof of their ignorance of the wisdom of God. Had they known the one, they would have known the other.
This passage illustrates a very important principle or usage ofSoripture. “We see that the person of Christ maybe designated irom his divine nature, when what is affirmed of him is true only of his homan nature. The Lord of glory was crucified; the Souof God was bornofawoman; he who was equal with God humbled himself to be obedient unto death. In like manner we speak of the birth or death of a man without meaninc that the soul is born or dies; and the Scriptures speak ot the birth and death of the Son of God, without meaning that the divine nature is subject to these changes. It is also plain that to predicate ignorance, subjection, sufiering, death, or any other limitation of the Son of God, is no more inconsistent with the divinity of the person so designated, than to predicate birth and death of a man, is inconsistent with the immateriality and inunoitality of the human soul “WTiatevoris true either of the sonlor body maybe predicated of a man as a person; and whatever is true of either the divine or human nature of Christ may be predicated of Christ as a person. We need not hesitate therefore to say with Paul, the Lord of glory was crucified; or even, in accordance with the received text in Acts 30, 28, “God purchased the church with his blood.” The person who died was truly God, although the divine nature no more died than the soul of man does when the breath leaves his body.
9. But as it is written, Eye bath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
The meaning of this verse is plain, although there ai-e several difficulties connected with it. Paul had sdd, he preached the hidden wisdom of God, which none of the princes of this world knew; he taught what no eye hath seen, nor ear heard, nor heart conceived. That is, he preached truth undiscoverable by human reason. To enter into the heart means to occur to the mind. Compare in the Hebrew, Isaiah 65, 17.
The first difficulty connected with this verse is a grammatical one, which does not appear in our version because of the freedom of the translation. Literally the passage reads, ‘What no eye saw, and no ear heard, and no heart conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him — .’ The sentence is incomplete. This difficulty may be met either by a reference to the usage referred to in the note on the last verse of the preceding chapter, v. 31, the custom of the apostles to quote passages from flie Old Testament without weaving them grammatically into their own discourse. Or, we may supply, as many do, the word (XaXoB/iei’) ’ toe speak what God hath prepared for those who love him.’ Or this verse may be connected with what follows: ‘What eye hath not seen — what (namely) God hath prepared for his people, he hath revealed to us by his Spirit.’ — The first of these explanations is generally adopted and is the most satisfactory.
The second difficulty relates to the passage quoted. As the formula, “As it is written,” is never used by the apostles except in the citation of the canonical boolra of the Old Testament, it cannot be admitted that Paul intended to quote either some book now lost, or some apocryphal writing. If it be assumed that he intended to quote Isaiah 64, 4, the difficulty is twofold, first, the language or words are different, and secondly, the sense is different. Isaiah 64, 4, (or 8 in the Hebrew) as literaily translated by Dr. J. A. Alexander, is i “And from eternity they have not heai’d, they have not perceived by the ear, the eye hath not seen, a God beside thee (^iho) will do for (one) waiting for him.” The idea is, that men had never known any other God tbau Jehovah who did, or could do, what he tlu-eatened to do. The Septuagint expresses the same idea. The meaning in Isaiah as connected with what precedes, seem a to be that the reason why such fearful things as had been predicted were to be expected from Jehovah is, that he alone had proved himself able to perform them. To get over this difficulty some propose a different interpretation of the passage in the prophet. By connecting it with what follows, and by taking the word God in the vocative, the sense may be, ‘Fi-om eternity they have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, eye bath not seen, O God, without thee, (i. e. without a revelation) what he, (or, by change of person) what thou hast prepared for those that wait for thee.’ This is the version ven in the Vulgate, and brings the passage into harmoiw with the apostle’s quotation.
Others, assuming the first-mentioned interpretation of the passage in Isaiah to be the true one, consider the apostle as using scriptural language without intending to give the sense of the original. TEs we often do, and it is not unfreqnently done in the New Testament, Rom. 10, 18. As it is written, ia not, in this case, the form of quotation, but is rather equivalent to saying, ‘To use the language of Scripture.’
A third explanation of this difficulty is, that the apostle did not intend to quote any one passage of scripture, bat to appeal to its authority for a clearly revealed ti’uth. It is certainly taught in the Old Testament that the human mind cannot penetrate into the couliaels of God; his purposes can only be known by a supernatural revelation. This is the tmth for which the apostle cites the authority of the Old Testament. There is, theretbre, not the slightest ground for imputing Mure of memory, or an erroneous interpretation to the inspired apostle.
10. But God hath revealed (them) unto ua by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all tilings, yea, the deep things of God.
What was nn disco veraMe by human reason, God hath revealed by hia Spirit. Unto us, i, e. iiato those to whom this revelation, was made, viz. “the holy apostles and prophets,” Eph. 3, 5, This revelation was made by the Spirit, for lie alone is competent to make it; for he alone aearcnes the deep thhigs of Grod. Searches, i. e. explores, acom-ately and thoroughly knows. The word does not expre the proee of investigation, but rather its results, viz., profound faowledge. Thus God is said to seai-ch the hearts of the children of men, to intimate that there is nothing in naan that escapes his notice, Rom, 8, 27. Rev. 2, 23. So there is nothing in God unknown to the Spirit. The deep things, i. e. depths of God, the inmost receases, as it were, of his being, perfections and purposes. The Spii-it, therefore, is fully competent to reveal that wisdom which had for ages been hid in God. This passage proves at once the personality and the divinity of the Holy Ghost. His personality, because intelligent activity is ascribed to him; he searches, his divinity, because omnisaenco is ascribed to him; he knows all that God knows,
11. Por what man knoweth the tMngs of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
This verse is designed to illustrate two points: First, as no one knows the thouts of a man but the man himself, so no one knows the thoughts of God, but God himself. Therefore no one but a divine person is competent to make a revelation of the thoughts and purposes of God. Second, as every man does know his own flioughts, so the Spirit of God knows the thoughts of God. His knowledge of what is in God is analogous to that which we have of ttie contents of our own consciousness. The analoes of scripture, however, are not to be pressed beyond the pomt which they are intended to illustrate. The point to be illustrated here is, the knowledge of the Spirit, lie knows what is in God, as we know what is in ourselves. It is not to be inferi-ed from this that the Spirit of God beai-a in other points the same relation to Qod, that our spirits do
12. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
The apostle had set forth two sources of knowledge, the one, human; the other, divine; the one, the mforming principle which is in man; the other, the informing pvmcijple which is of God. And he asserts that the sonrco of that wisdom, or knowledge which he commimicated, was not the former, hut the &tter. It was not human reason, Irnt the Spirit of God. The spirit of the world does not here mean a worldly disposition or temper; bat spirit is that which knows and teaches. The spirit of the world is therefore a periphraae for reason, which is the piinciple of knowledge in men. When Paul says he had not received that spiiut, he means that human reason waa not the source of the knowledge which he communicated. The Spirit which is of God, is t£e Holy Spirit as proceeding from him and sent by him as the instructor of men. To receive the Spirit is to be the subject of hia influence. It, therefore, depends upon the context and on the nature of the influences spoken of, who are intended by those who receive the Spirit. Here the whole connection shows that the apostle is spealdng of revelation and inspiration; and therefore we must mean we apostles, (or Paul himself,) and not we Christians.
That, i. e, in order that, we might knoto the things freely given to us of God, i. e. the things graciously revealed by God. This clause does not refer to inward spiritual blesangs now enjoyed by believers, nor to the ftitare blessedness of the saints, except so far as these are included in the general subject of Paul’s preaching. The connection is with v. 10. ‘What human reason could not discover, God hath revealed to us apostles, in order that we might know what he has thus graciously communicated.’ The subject is the wisdom of God, the gospel, as distinguished from the wisdom of the world. This IS clear both from what precedes and from what follows.
13. Which things also we speak, not in the words
which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy
Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with
spiritual.
Which things, the things revealed by the Spirit, We also speak. We do not only know, we also communicate the things which God has revealed. How is this done? What language did the apostle use in communicating what he had received by divine revelation? He answers, according to his usual method, firat, negatively; and tiieii, positiTely, It was not done “in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth.” This includes two things. The words used by the apostle were neither auch as the skill of tho rhetoiician would suggest, nor siieh as his own mind, uninfluenced by the Spirit of God, suggested. The affirmative statement is, that the words used were taught by the Holy Ghost. Thia is verbal inspiration, or the doctrine that the writers of the Scriptures were controlled by the Spii-it of God in the choice of the words which they employed in commuuicatrng divine truth. This has been stigmatized as “the mechanical theory of inspiration,” degrading the sacred penmen into mere machines. It is objected to this doctrine that it leaves the diversity of style which mai’ka the different portions of the Bible, unaccounted for But, if God can control the thoughts of a man without making him a machine, why cannot he control his language? And why may he not render each writer, whether poetical or prosaic, whether polished or rude, whether apnoi’istio or logical, iafalhble in the use of his characteristic style? K the language of the Bible be not inspired, then we have the truth communicated through the discolouring and distorting medium of humsm imperfection. Paul’s direct assertion ia that the words which he used, were taught by the Holy Ghost.
Gomparing spiritual things with spiritual; or rather, Joining spintual things to spiritual words, or, explning the things of the Spu-it in the words of the Spirit. For the use of trvyKpivav in the sense of mt&rpreting or mining, see Gen. 40,8.16. 41,12.15. Dan. 6, 12. in the LXx. Thia interpretation is demanded by the connection. The apostle had sd that the truths which he taught were revealed by the Spii-it; and that the words which he used were taught by the Spirit, which he sums up by saying, he explained spu’itual things in spiritual words. This view of the passage is perfectly consistent with, the signiScation of the words. Toe origmal word {oTryKpivoiy means not only mentally to combine and hence to compare, but also to join together; and also to explain. It is used in the Septuat to express the act of interpreting dreams or enigmas. The clause in quion may, therefore, be translated either, eomiining ^ritucd things with ritual words; or, explaining the one by the other. Besides, the word spirituai {-Trvev/ianKol), which has no substantive connected with it, most natui-ally agrees with words (Adyow) understood, which immediately precedes.
The other interpretation, comparing epirituai things with spiritual, whether it means comparing the Old Testament with the New, as some say; or, as others understand it, comparing one portion of the Spirit’s teaching with another, is inconsistent with the contest. Much less can be sd in fevour of a third interpretation of this clause adopted by many, who understand the apostle to say, he explains spiritual things to spiritual pe)-s£>«a. This anticipates what follows.
14. But the natural man receiveth not the things
of the Spirit of God; for they are fooHshness unto
Mm: neither can he know (them), because they are
spiritually discerned.
Although the things of the ^rit, that is, the truths of hia word, ai-e so clearly revealed; and although they have been communicated in language taught by the Spu’it, yet, by a certain class of men, they are rejected. That is, they are not believed, appreciated, and obeyed. This class of men is called natural. The meaning of this tenn cannot be detei-mined by the mere signification of the word (^axi«ds), for it signifies both sensnaT (i. e. under the influence of the lower animal principles of our nature), and also natural, i, e. under the influence of what belongs to the nature of man as it now exists, as distingolshed from the Spirit of God. Many commentators say that the (^uxotoO natw are the sensoal, and the opposite class the (irvtvixaTiKoi) spiritual are the intellectual, the rational, those under the influence of the (irveSjaa) spirit in the sense of the higher, as distinguished from the lower, principles of our nature. According to this view, Paul means to say, that although sensual men do not receive the things of the Spirit, intellectual men do. This interpretation, however, cannot be correct. 1. Because it gives a meaning to the passage not only inconastent with the direct assertion of the apostle, but opposed to the whole drift and design of his argument. He not only declares that it was not the wise, the refined and cultivated who received the gospel — but his whole object is to prove that the reason of man, or man in the highest development of his nature, can neither, discover “the things of the Spirit,” nor receive them when revealed. It is of God, and not because of then’ superior culture or refinement, that men are in Christ, 1, 30. These things are hid from the wise and prudent, and revealed unto babes, Matt. 11, 25. 2. Becauae tho word spiritual, when used in the Now Testament of persons, never means intdkotual. It always means one under the influence of the Holy Spirit. It therefore must have that meaning here. 3. The very distinction designed to be expressed here and elsewhere by the terms natural and spiritual, ia that between nature and grace, between the natural and supernatural, James 3, 15. Jade 19. 4. The reason assigned why the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit, viz., because “they are spiritually discerned,” does not mean ‘becaase they are rationally discerned,’ and therefore it is not the want of due cultivation of the reason that characterizes the natural maji, but the want of the Spirit. By natural man, therefore, we must miderstand the unrenewed man; the man under the influence of hranan nature, as distinguished from those who are under the influence of the Holy Spirit. The natural or unrenewed man does not receive the thmg of the Spirit. As the things which the Holy Ghost has revealed address themselves not only to the intelleot aa true, but to the conscience as obligatory and to the affections as excellent and lovely, not to receive them, is not to recognize, in our inward experience, their truth, authority, and excellence.
For they are foolishness unto them. The word (/wupos) foolish, as an adjective, means in Greek, ^U, insipid, tasteless,- as a substantive, one that ia dull, or stupid; that ia, one on whom truth, duty and excellence do not produce their proper effect. Foolishness (luopia) is that which is to us absurd, insipid, powerless. When, therefore, it is said that the tilings of the ^irit are foolishness to the natural man, it means that they are to him absurd, insipid and distasteful.
And lie cannot know them. To know is to discern the nature of any thing, whether as true, or good, or beautiful. This is in accordance with the constant usage of scripture. To know God is to diacem his truth and excellence; to Know the truth is to apprehend it as true and good. The wise are the good, that is, those who discern the truth and excellence of divine things. The fools are the wicked, those who are insensible to truth iuid goodness. What, therefore, the apostle here affirms of the natural or unrenewed man is, that he cannot discei-n the truth, excellence, or beauty of divme things. Ha cannot do it. It is not simply that he does not do it; or that he will not do it, but he cannot. We do not say of a clown that he will not discern the ti-uth, exceilenee, and beauty of a poem. The difficulty is not merely in his will but in his whole inward state. The thing ia foolishness to him. So the scriptures do not say of the natural man merely that he will not discern the things of the Spirit, because the difficulty in his case is not in the will alone, but in his whole inward state. He cannot know them. And the reason is,
because they <ere spiritually discerned. That is, because they are discerned thi’ough the Spirit. Therefore those who have not the Spii”it cannot discern them. If the effect of sin on the human soul ia to make it blind to the truth, excellence and beauty of diTine things; if, as the apostle asserts, the natural, or unrenewed, man is in such a state that the things of the Spirit are foolishness to him, absurd, insipid and distasteful, then it follows that he can discern them only thi-ough the Spirit. His inward state must be changed by the influence of the Spirit before he can apprehend the truth and excellence of the gospeL There must be congeniality between the perceiver and the thing perceived. Only the pure in heart can see God. If our gospel be hid, says the apostle, it is hid to them that are lost. The only hope of the unrenewed, therefore, is in doing as the blind did in the days of Christ. They must go to him for spiritual discernment; and those who go to him he will in no wise cast out.
15. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself ia judged of no man.
To judge here means to discern, to appreciate, and thus pass judgment upon. As the original word is the same in this as in the preceding verso, there is no good reason why the translation should vary. The spiritual man discerns the things which are spiritually discerned, though he himself is not discerned or properly appreciated by any natural man. The all things here ^oken of are limited by the context to the things of the Spirit. It is not of the officers of the church only, nor of the church collectively, but of each and every man in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, that the apostle affirms this ability to discern the truth, excellence and beauty of divine things. It is as impossible that one man should discern for anoflier what is true and good, as that one man should see for another. We must see for ourselves or not at all. The right of private judgment m matters of religion, is inseparable from the indwelling of the Spirit. Those who can see, have the right to see. It is the office of the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth, to open our eyes to discern it in its true nature, and to feel its power. It is on this demonstration of the Spirit, as taught above, that saving faith is founded. And as this demonstration ia granted to every one who has the Spirit, the faith of the Christian is founded neither on the wisdom of men nor on the authority of the church, and ia euhject to neither.
Yet he himself is Judged of no man. This again is limited by the context. He is appreciated ty no man who has not the Spirit. Paul afterwards says it wa-* to him a small matter to be judged by man’s judgment, 4, 3. He is not here spealdng of the legitimate subjection of the believer to his brethren; for he elsewhere teaches that those who have the Spirit may sit in judgment on those who profess to be spiritual, and determine how far they are really led by the Spirit. And he gives the rule by which that judgment is to be directed, 5, 9-12. 12, 3. Gal. 1, 8. If any man profess to be spiritual, and yet does what the Spirit in his word forbids, or denies what the Spirit teaches, we know that he deceives himself, and that the truth is not in him. Wb must try the spirits, whether they be of God. This is true, and is perfectly consistent with what the apostle here say, which only means that the spiritual raaa cannot be discerned or estimated aright by those who are not spiritual.
16. For who hath known the mind of the Lord,
that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of
Christ.
Tins is a confirmation of what precedes. No one can judge a spiritual man, for that would be to judge the Lord. The Lord had revealed certain doctrines. The spiiitual discern those doctrines to he true. For any man to pronounce them false, and to judge those who held them, supposes he is able to teach the Lord. As no one can do this, no one can judge those who have the mind of Christ, that is, those whom Christ by Iiis Spirit has taught the truth. Syllostically stated, the axgument would stand thus: No one can instruct the Lord. We have the mind of the Lord. Therefore no one can instruct or judge us. The first member of this syllogism is expressed m the language of Isaiah 40, 15, accordmg to the Septuagmt. The philosophers of Greece and the soribea
among the Jews had sat in judgment upon Paul, and pronounced his preachmg foohshness. He tolls them they wore not competent judges. The natural mail cannot discern the things of the Spirit, and is incompetent to judge those whom the Spirit has taught. As what we teach is the mind of the Lord, to condemn our doctrine, or to judge iis as the teachers of those doctrines, is to condemn the Lord.
What in the Old Testament is said of Jehovah is often in the New Testament applied to Christ. Tins ia the case here. Who hath tnown the mind of the Lord? means, who hath known the mind of Jehovah? We Jiave the mind of Christ, therefore, means, we have the mind of Jehovah. What is true of the one ia true of the other.. The same person who is revealed in the New Testament as the Son of God, was revealed of old as Jehovah, This teaches how firm a foandation the believer has for his fiiith, and how impossible it is for any one taught by the Spirit to give up his convictions to the authority of men.