Chapter VI

This consisls of two distinct parograpLs. The first, to, 1-H, relates to lawsuits tefora heathen mtigistrstea The seoona, vs. ia-20, ta the abuse uliich some had made of tho punoiple, “All tilings are lawful.”

Ongoing to lavj before the Iieathen. Vs. 1-11. Paul expresses enrprise that any Christian should prosecute a fellow Christian before a heathen judge, v. 1. If Christiana are destined to judge the world, and even angels, they may surely settle among themselves their worldly affi-s, vs. 2. 3. If they had such suite, must they appoint those whom the church could not esteem to decide them? Was there not one man among themselves able to act as a judge? vs. 4-6. It was a great evil that they had such lawsuits. It would he better to submit to injnstice, v. 1. Instead, however, of submitting to wrong, they committed it, v. 8. He solemnly assures them that the unjust, or rapacious, or corrupt should not inherit the kingdom of God, vs. i), 10. They had been such, but as Christians they were washed from these defilements, and justified through Christ and by his Spirit, v. 11.

1. Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?

The thu-d evil in the church of Corinth which the apostle endeavours to correct, was the prosecuting legal suits before heathen judges. There was no necesaty for this practice. The Roman laws allowed the Jews to settle their disputes about property by arbitration among themselves. And the eai-ly Clii-istiana, who were not distinguished as a distinct clasa from the Jews, had no doubt the same privilege. It is not necessary, however, to assume that the apostle has reference liei-e to that privilege. It was enough that these civil suits might be arranged without the disgraceful spectacle of Christian suing Christiau before heathen magistrates. The Rabbins say, “It is a statute which binds all Israelites, that if one Israelite has a cause against another, it must not be prosecuted before the Gentiles.” Msenmenffcr’a Entdeckt. Judenth. ii. p. 427.

J)are any of you f Is any one so bold as thus to shock the Christian sense of propriety? Having a matter. The Greek phrase (Trpayiia ex*“‘) means to have a suit, which is obviously the sense here intended. To go to law before the unjust. It is plain that by the uryust are meant the heathen. But why are they so called? As the tenna holy and righteous are often used in a technical sense to designate the professed people of God without reference to personal character; so the terms sinners and unjust are used to designate the heathen as distinguished from the people of God. The Jews as a class were holy, and the Gentiles were unholy; though many of the latter were morally much better than many of the former. In Gal. 2, 15, Paul says to Peter, “We are by nature Jews, and not sinners of the Gentiles;” meaning thereby simply that they were not Gentiles. The reason why the heathen as such are called the imjust, or sintiere, is that according to the Scriptures the denial of the true God, and the worship of idols, is the greatest unrighteousness; and therefore the heathen, because heathen, are called the unrighteous. The word unjust is too limited a word to answer Mly to the Greek term (oSiKos), which in its scriptural sense means wicked, not conformed to the law of God. In this verse the opposite tei-m, saints, or the holy, designates Christians as a class; and, therefore, the unjust must mean the heathen as a class. The complaint against the Corinthians was not that they went to law before unjust judges, but that they appealed to heathen judges. It is true their being heathen proved them to be unrighteous in the scriptural sense of the term; but it was not their moral character, so much as their religious status, that was the ground of the complaint. It was indeed not to be expected that men govei-ned by heathen laws and pi-inciplea of morals, would be as fur and just as those governed by Clii-iatian principles; but what Paul complained of was, not that the Corinthians could not get justice at the hands of heathen magisti-ates, bat that they acted unworthily of their dignity as Cnmtians in seeking justice from each a source. Paul himself appealed to Cesar. It was, therefore, no sin in his eyes to seet justice from a heathen judge, when it could not otherwise be obtained. But it was a sin and a disgrace in ills estimation for Christians to appeal to heathen magistrates to settle disputes among themselves.

3. Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

Do you not know f a form of expression often used by the apostle when he wishes to bnng to mm.d some important truth, which his readers knew but disregarded. It was a conceded point, one which entered into the common iaith of Christians, that the SMnts are to judge the world. The saints (ol ayun), the people of God, who are called saints because separated from the world and consecrated to his sei-vice. Those, therefore, who are of the world and devoted to its pursuits, are not saints. TAe saints shall judge tfie world. This does not mean that the time would come when Christians would become magistrates; nor that the conduct of the saints would condemn the world, as it is said the Queen of the South would condemn those who refused to listen to the words of Christ, Matt. 12, 42. The context and spirit of the passage require that it should be understood of the future and final judgment. Saints are said to sit in Judgment on that great day tor two” ‘! Chr” ’

; first, because Christ, who is to be the judge, is the head and representative of hk people, in whom they reign and judge. The exaltation, and dominion of Christ are their exaltation and dominion. This is the constant representation of Scripture, Eph. 2, 6. In Heb. 2, 5-9 the declaration that all things are subject to man, is siud to be fulfilled in all things being made subject to Chi-ist. Secondly, because his people are to be associated with Christ in his dominion. They are joint heirs with him, Rom, 8, 17. If we suffer, we shall reign with him, 2 Tim. 2, 12. In Dan. ?, 23 it was predicted that judgment (the right and power to judge) should be given to the siunts of the Most High. Comp. Matt. 19, 28. Luke 22, 30. Rev, 2, 26. 21. If then, asks the apostle, such a destiny as this awaits you, are ye unfit to decide the smallest mattere? If the world {mankind) shall be fudged by you {Iv viv), i. e. before you as judges. Are ye unworthy {iviiioi), i. e. of too little weight or value, having neither the requisite dignity nor ability. Unworthy of the STtmllest matters. The word (k/m-Tripiov), here rendered matters, in the sense of causes, or matters for judgment, means, 1. A criterion or test; a rule of judgment. 2. A tribunal or place of judgment, and then, the court or asaemfcled judges. Ex. 21, 6. Judges 5, 10, Dan. 7, 10, and in the New Testament, James 2, 6. 3. The trial, i. e. the process of judgment. 4, The cause itseU; or matters to be tried. This last sense is doubtM, although it is generally adopted here because it suits so well the fourth verse, where the same word occurs. The second sense would suit this verse. ‘If ye are to sit with Christ on the seat of universal judgment, are ye unworthy of the lowest judgment Beats.’ But the fourth verse is in favour of the explanation adopted in our version. ‘Are ye unfit for the least causes?’

3. Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how
much more things that pertam to this life?

As, according to Scripture, only the fallen angels are to be judged in the last day, most commentators suppose the word must here be restricted to that class. Not only men, but fallen angels are to stand before that tribunal on which Christ and ilia church shall Mt in judgment. If agreeably to the constant usage of the Scriptures, aooording to which (as remai-ked above, 4, 9) the word when unqualified means good angels, it be understood of that class here, then the explanation is probably to be sought in the comprehensive sense of the word to judge. As kings were always judges, and as the administration of justice was one of the principal functions of their office, hence to rule and to judge are in Scripture often convertible terms. To judge Israel, and to rule Isi-ael, mean the same thing. And in Mfttt.lD,28,“8ittingontwelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel,” means presidmg over the twelve tribes. So in the case before us, “Know ye not that we shaO judge angels?” may mean, ‘Know ye not that we are to be exalted above the angels, and preside over them; shall we not then preside over earthly things?’ This explanation avoids the difficulty of supposing that the good angels are to be called into j udgment;

.and is consistent with what the Bible teaches of the subordination of angels to Christ, and to the church in him.

4. If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemei. in the church.

Paul laments that there were litigations among them; but if they could not be avoided. Christians should act ia reference to thera in a manaer consistent with their high destiny. Here the word (ttpirpia), rendered judgments, seems so naturally to mean causes things to be tried, that that sense of the word is almost univei-sally assumed. It may, however, mean trials, judicial processes; which is more in accordance with the established use of the words. Set them to Judge who are least esteemed in the church. The original admits of this translation. If the passage be so rendered, then it has a sarcastic tone. ‘Set your least esteemed members to decide such mattei-s.’ It may, however, be read interrogatively, ‘Do ve set aa judges those least esteemed in {i. e. by) the church (that is, the heathen)? ‘This translation is generally preferred as beat in keeping with the context. The sentence is emphatic. ‘Those despised (see 1, 28) by the church, — those do you. set to judge? ‘It is an expression of surpiise at their acting so unworthily of their high calling.

5. I Speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren P

I speak to yovr shame. That is, I desire to produce in you a sense of ^ame. This may refer either to what precedes or to what follows. It was adapted to mate them ashamed that they had acted so unworthily of tbeii- dignity as Christians; and it was no leas disgraceful to them to i po e tl t there was not in the ehurcli a single man fit to act aa b t ator. ‘Who shall be able. The Eiture hero ei e sea what should or may happen. Setween his breth en h e lly between his brother; i. e. between his complain b oth a d hbu against whom the complaint was brought 6. But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbeHevers.

Instead of referring the matter to the arbitration of a judicious brother, ye ffo to law, and that before unbelievers. There are here two grounds of complaint. First, that they went to law (KpiVeo-^at) instead of resorting to arbiti-ation

By unbelievers are to be nnderatood the 1 connection the heathen are designated under one aspect, the unjust; under another, the despised; and under a third, the unbelieving, i, e. not ChriatiaQS — but, as the implication in this particular case is, pagans. And thai {koX toSto), a form of expression often used when pai-ticnlar stress is to be laid on the circumstance indicated.

7. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among
you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do
ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather
(suffer yourselves to) be defrauded?

JVoio therefore (i)^ //.hf oSv), already indeed iherd’ore. That is, these lawsuits ai-e already, or in themselves (oA<os), an e-vil irrespective of their being conducted before heathen judges. The word ^Trqfia does not so properly mean favM as loss or evil. It is a loss or evil to you to have these litigations. See Rom, II, 12, where the rejection of the Jews ia called their {Tfrrqlia) loss. “Why do you. nol, &o. That is, why, instead of going to law with your brethren, do you not rather submit to mjustice and robbeiy f This is a clear intimation that, under the circumstances in which the Corinthians were placed, it was wrong to go to law, even to protect themselves from injury. That this is not to be regarded as a general rule of dhvistian condaot is plain, because, under the old dispensation, God appointed judges for the administration of justice; and because Paul himself did not hesitate to appeal to Cesar to protect himself from the injustice of bis couatrymeu.

8. Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that (your)
bretlu’en.

Instead of having reached that state of perfection in which ye can patiently eubtnit to injustice, yo are yoiiraelvea unjust and fraudulent. This must have teen the case with some of them, othoririse there would be no occasion for these lawsuits. Their offence was aggravated, because their own brethren were tho object of their unjust exactions,

9. 10. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

The tendency to divorce relion from morality has manifested itself m all ages of the world, and under all forma of religion. The pagan, the Jew, the Mohammedan, the nominal Christian, have all been exact in the performance of religious services, and zealous in the assertion and defence of what they regarded as religious truth, while unrestrained in the indulgence of every evil passion. This arises from looking upon religion as an outward service, and God as a being to be feared and propitiated, bat not to be loved and obeyed. According to the gospel, all moral duties are religious services; and piety is the conformity of the soul to the image and will of God. So that to be religious and yet immoral is, iiccording to the Chiistian system, as palpable a contradiction as to be good and wicked. It is evident that among the membera of the Cormtbiaii chnrcb, there were some who retained their pagan notion of religion, and who professed Christianity as a ayatem of doctrine and as a form of worship, but not as a rule of life. All such persons the apostle warned of their fatal mistake. He assures them that no immoral man, — no man who allows himself the indulgence of any known sin, can be saved. This is one of the first principles of the gospel, and therefore the apostle asks, Knme ye not that the vmrighteiyiisslhoM not inherit the Mngdom of God? Are ye Christians at all, and yet ignorant of this first principle of the religion you profess? Tne tmriffhteoua in this immediate connection, means the unjust; those who violate the principles of justice in their dealmgs with their fellow-men. It is not the unjust alone, however, who are to be thus debarred from the Re- (leemer’a kingdom — but also tlioae ■wlio break any of the conimaiidments of God, as this and other passages of Scripture distinctly teach.

Beiiovers are, in the Bible, often called heirs. Their inheritance is a kingdom; that kingdom which God has established, and which is to be conamnmated in heaven, Lulce 12, 32. Matt. 24, 34, &o. &o. From this inheritance all the immoral, no matter how zealous they may be in the profession of the truth, or how assiduous in the performance of religious services, shall be excluded. Let it also be remembered that immoraHty, according to the Bible, does not consist exclusively ;n outward sins, but also in sins of the heart; as covetousness, malice, envy, pride, and such like. Gal. 5, 21. No wonder that the disciples, on a certain occasion, asked their master. Lord, ai-e there few that be saved? or that the Lord answeied them by saying, “Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way tlatleadcthmito life, and few there be that find it,” Luke 1.3, 24.

11. And such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

And such were some of you. This is understood by many as equivalent to Such were you. The word {uvU) being redundant, or the idea being, ‘Some were impure, some dmnkarda, some violent, ifec, or rauTii rivt being taken together as equivalent to rotovroi. The natural explanation is, that the apostle designedly avoided charging the gross Immoralitiea just referred to upon all the Corinthian Christians in their previous condition. With I’egard to the three terms which follow, washed, sanetijled, justified, they may be taken, as by Calvin and others, to express the same idea under different aspects. That idea is, that they had been converted, or completely changed. They had put off the old man, and put on the new man. Their sms, conadered as filth, had been washed away; considered as pollution, they had been purged or purified; considered as guiit, they had been covered with the righteousness of God, Rom. 1, 17. The majority of commentators take the several terms separately, each expressmg a distmct idea. In what precise sense each of these words is to be understood, becomes, then, somewhat doubtful.

Sut y6 are washed. The word here used ia-TreXovaao-^i) is in the middle voice, and therefore may be rendered, ye ham washed yovrselves, or, permitted yourselves to he washed; or, as the majority of eommentatoi prefer,’ on account of the following passives, ye were washed. This use of the First Aoi-ist Middle in a passive sense is very unnanal, but not unauthorized; see 1 Cor. 10, 2, It does not seem to be of much moment whether the word be taken here as active or as passive, for the same thine may be expressed in either foi-m. Men are called upon to wash away their sins, Acts 22, 16; to put off the old man, etc. and to put on the new man, Eph. 4, 23. 24; although the change expressed by these terms is elsewhere referred to God. The reason of this is, that a human and a divine agency ai-e combined itt the effects thus produced. We work our own salvation, while God works in us, Phil. 2, 12. 13, With equal propriety, therefbi-e, Paul might say to the Corinthians, ‘Ye washed yourselves; ’ or, ‘Ye were washed,’ To wash means to purify, and w frequently used in Sci;ipture to express moral or spiritual purification. Is, 1, 16, “Wash ye, make you clean,” Ps, 51, 7, “Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.” Jer. 4, 14. In these and many other passages the word expresses general purification, without exclusive reference to guilt or to pollution. There is no reason why it should not be taken in this general sense here, and the phrase be rendered, either, ‘Ye have purified yourselves,’ or, ‘Ye are purified.’ The reference which so many assume to baptism, does not seem to be authorized by any thing in the context,

JBiit ye are sanctijied. This clause is either an amplification of the preceding one, expressing one aspect or effect of the washing spoken o viz,, then* holiness; or, it is to be understood of theii- separation and consecration. ‘Ye have not only been purified, but also set apai’t as a peculiar people.’ In Scripture, any thing is said to be sanctified that is devoted to the sei-vice of God, Thus, God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it. Gen. 2, 3. Moses sanctified the people, Ex. 19, 14, &o. &o.

JBut ye are Jiistijied. As to justify in Scripture always means to pronounce righteous, or to declare just in the sight of the [aw, it must be so understood here. The Corinthians had not only been purified and consecrated, but also justified, i, e. clothed in the righteousness of Christ, and on that account accepted as righteous in the sight of God, They were tljei-ofore tinder the highest possible otligsitioii not to relapse into their fbrmer state of pollution and oondemnatioii. In the name of the Zord Jesim, and by the Spirit of our God. These clauses a,re not to be restricted to the preceding word, as though the meaning were, ‘Ye have been justified I in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.’^ They belong equally to all three of the preceding terms. The’ believers were indebted for the great change which they had experienced; for their washing, sanctification, and justification, to Chi-ist and to the Holy Ghost. The Spirit bad applied to them the redemption purchased by Chj-ist. In tM name of the Xord Jesus. “The name of God,” or “of Christ,’ is often a periphrase for God or Christ himself. To call upon the name of God is to call on God. To baptize unto the name of Christ, and to baptize unto Christ, are interchanged as Byiionymous expressions. So here, to be justified or sanctified in the name of Christ, means simply by Christ; see John 20, 31, “That believing ye might have life through his name.” Acte 10, 43, “That through his name whoso believeth in him might have remission of sins.” Though these forms of expression are substantially the same aa to their import, yet the “name of God” means not strictly God himself, but God as known and -worshipped. The Holy Ghost ia called the %>i-Ht ofowr God; that is, the Spirit of our reconciled God and Father, by whom that Spirit is sent in fulfilment of the promise of the Father to the Son, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law in order that we might receive the promise of the Spirit, Gal 3, 13. 14.

Aiuse of the principle of Christian liberty. Vs. 12-20,

The principle of Christian liberty, or the doctrine that “all things are lawful,” is to be limited in its application to thmga indifferent; first, by considerations of expediency; and secondly, by regard to our own spiritual fi’eedom, v. 12. From that prindple it is legitimate to infer, because of the adaptortion of the stomach to food, that all things srated for food are lawful. The one is obviously designed for the other, dm-ing the temporai-y condition of the present hie But no such application of the principle is allowable m the cose of foriiicaflou; because the body is not designed foi that end, but belongs to the Lord, with whom it stands ui in mdissoluble connection, so that he who raised him up w ill ilso raise up our bodies, vs. 13. 14, It is because of this intimate relation of our bodies to Christ as hia members, that fornication is so great li ciime, inconsistent with our union to him as paitakera

of his Spirit, VS. 15-1?. It is, in a pecdiar manner, asm against the body, destructive of its veiy nature, v, 18. The body is a temple in which the Spirit dwells, but it ceases to be such if protaned by licentiousness, v, 19. Beiievei-s must remember that they, even their bodies, are the objects of redemption, having been purchased by the blood of Christ, and therefore they should be devoted to his gloiy, v. 20.

12. All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

Having in the preceding paragraph declared that the immoral cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and having given special prominence to sins against the seventh commandment, the Apostle comes in this paragraph to consider the ground on Tvhich the violations of that commandment were defended or palliated. That ground was a gross perversion of the principle of Christian liberty. Paul was accustomed to say in reference to the eereraonial or positive enactments of the Jewish law, and especially in reference to the distinction between clean and unclean meats, “All thmgs are lawful to me.” As the Greeks and Romans generally regarded fornication as belonging to the class of things indifferent, that is, not immoral in themselves; it is not surprising that some of the Corinthians educated in that belief should retain and act on the principle even after their profession of Christianity. They reasoned from analogy. As it is right to eat all kinds of food which are adapted to the stomach, so it is right to gratify &aj other natui-al propensity. Paul’s answer to this argument is twofold. He first shows that the principle of Christian liberty in things indifferent is to be restricted in its application; and Hecondly, that there is no analogy between the cases mentioned. Food is a thing indifferent; whereas fornication is in its own nature a profanation and a crime.

The first limitation to which the principle “all things are lawful” is subject in its application to tnings indifferent, is expediency. All lawful things are not expedient. It is both absurd and wicked to do any thing which ig injurious to ouiselves or others, simply because it is not in its own nature auful. This principle of expediency the Apostle enforces at Icngtli in Rom. 14, 15-23, and 1 Cor. 8, 7-13, and 10, 23-33. The second limitation of our liberty in the use of things indifferent, is self-respect. Because it is lawful to eat, that is no I’eason why I should make myself a slave to my appetite. “I will not,” say a Paul, “be brought under the power of any thing.” I will not make myself its slave. It is of groat importance to the moral health of the soul that it should preserve its self-control, and not be in subjection to any appetite or desire, however innocent that desire in itself may be. This is a scriptural rule which Christians often violate. TJiey are slaves to certain forms of indulgence, which they defend on the ground that they are not in themselves wrong; forgetting that it is wi’ong to be in bondage to any appetite or habit.

13. Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body (is) not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.

Heats for the belly, and the heUy for meats. The one is evidently adapted and designed for the other. It is a legitimate inference from this conatitution that it is lawful to eat, and to eat every thing adapted for food. But this is a mere temporary arrangement, God villi destroy both it and them. The time shall come when men shall no more be sustdned by food, bat shall be as the angels of God. The fact that the present constitution of the body is temporal’, is a proof that meats belong to the class of things indirent. They can have no influence on the eternal destiny of the body. This is not true with regard to fornication. The body was never designed for promiscuous concubinage. And such a use of it is inconsistent with the design of its creation and with its future destiny.

The body is for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. The one stands in an intimate relation to the other. The body is designed to be a naember of Christ, and the dwelling-place of his Spirit. And he so regards it; redeeming it with his blood, uniting it to himself as a member of his mystical body, making it an instrument of righteousness unto holiness. “With this design of the body the sm in question is absolutely incompatible, and destructive of the rulation which the body sustains to the Lord.

14. And God iiatli both raised up the Lord, find
will also raise up us by his own power.

The destinj of the body being what is stated in the preceding veree, it is not to perish, but is to share in the i-esurrectiou of Christ. “He who rsiised Christ from the dead shall also quicken om- mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in us,”* Rom. 8. 11. This verse is pai’allel to the second clause of V. 13. Of the stomach and meats, it is said, God will destroy both it and them.; of the Lord and the body it is said. As he raised up the one, he will also raise up the other. The cases, therefore, are widely different. The I’elation between oai’ organs of digestion and food is temporary; the relation between Christ and the body is permanent. What concerns the former relation is a matter of indifference; what concerns the other touches the groundwork of our nature and the design for which we were created. On this destiny of the body compare 15, 15. 20. 35-56. PInl. 3, 21. Rom. S, 11. 2 Cor. 4, 14, 1 Thess. 4, 14,

15. 16. Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make (them) the members of an harlot? God forbid. What! know yc not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

The design of these verses is to establish two points. Firat, that the relation between our bodies and Chi-ist is of the intimate and vital character which had just been stated. And second, that the sin in question was inconsistent with that relation, and incompatible with it.

£mow ye not that yowr bodies am ihs members of CkriBt f This is a conceded and fcoiliar point of Christian doctrine, one with which they were supposed to be acquainted; and which prsved all that the Apostle had said of the relation be

* Instead of tha future iiyepiS, will raise up, LaehmaDii and Tiscliandorf after .A. D. rend ^frysfpei, e raises up. Meyei- after B. G7, prefei* Uiytipi, he raided rtp. According to ttiH last reading the returrectioi* of bcUcvera is represontud as Involved in that of Christ. As they died when Iia diud, fo they rose whun he rose. The common tuxt however u the baat Bnipportuil, ULil gives a good eonso. tiv’«;(i tlic body and Christ. Our bodies arc the membevs of Ciii’ist, because they belong to him, being iuctuded in the redemption effected fay his blood; and aJso because they are so united to him as to be partakers of his life. It is one of the prominent doctrines of the Bible that the union between Christ and his people includes a community of life; and it is clearly taught that this life pertains to the body as well as to the soul, Rom. 8, 6-11. Eph. 2, 6. 7. 5, 30. This ia the truth which the Apostle recalls to the minds of the Corinthiaas, and makes it the ground of his indignant condemnation of the sin of which he is speaking. That fornication ia incompatible with the relation of the bodies of believers to Chiiat, arises out of the peculiar nature of that sin. The parties to it become partakers of a common life. Whether we can understand this or not, it ia the doctrine of the Bible. Therefore as we cannot be partakers of the life of Christ, and of the life of Belial, so neither can our bodies be the members of Christ, and at the same time have a common life with “one who is a sinnsr,” in the scriptural sense of that phrase.

17. But he that is joined unto the Lord ia one
spirit.

That is, has ono Spirit with him. This does not mean has the same djspositioo or state of mind, but the same principle of life, V. 12, the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is given without measure unto Christ, and from him is communicated to all bis people who are thereby brought into a common life with him, Rom. 8, 9. 10. 1 Cor. 12, 13. John 17, 21. 23. Eph. 4, i. 5, 80. This beuig the case, it imposes the highest conceivable obligation not to act inconsistently with this intimate and exalting relationship.

18. Piee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication, sinneth against his own body.

This does not teach that fornication ia greater than any other sin; but it does teach that it is altogether peculiar ip its effects upon the body; not so much in its physical as in its moral and spiritual effects. The idea runs through the Bible that there is something mysterious in the commerce of the bexea, and in the effects wmch flow fl.’om it. Eveiy other sin, however degrading and ruinona to the health, even drimkennesa, is external to the body, that is, external to its life. Itutfomioation, involving as it does a commuoity of life, is a sin against the body itself, because incompatible, as the Ajiostle had just taught, with the design of its creation, and with ita immortal destiny.

19. What! know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost (which is) in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

There are two things characteristic of a temple. First, it ia sacred as a divelling-place of God, and therefore cannot be profaned with impunity. Second, the proprietorship of a temple is not in man, but in God, Both these things are trae of the believer’a body. It is a temple because the Holy Ghost dwells in it; and because it is not his own. It belongs to God. As it ia a temple of the Holy Ghost, it cannot be profaned without incumng great and peculiar guilt. And as it belongs in a peouliar sense to God, it is not at our own disposal. It can only be used for the purposes for which he designed it.

30. Por ye ai’e bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.*

Ye are bought. The verb is in the past tense, ^yopao-Sijre, ye were bought, i. e. delivered by piu-chase. The deliverance of men, from the power and condemnation of sin was not effected by power or by truth, but by a ransom. We wera ‘“”itly heid m bondage. We were under the penalty of the

‘, and until that penalty was satisfied, we could not be delivered. The blood of Christ is our ransom, because it met all the demands of justice.

The proprietorship in believers asserted at the close of the preceding verse, does not arise from creation or preservation, but from redemption, ‘Ye are not your own, for ye are bought with a price,’ Uom. 6, 17, Gal. 3, 13. Eph. 3, 13. Acts

The last elauso of this
Gi-Iestach down. Thoy are
In aareral of the ancient rerj

iustly h 20, 28. The price of redemption is the blood of Christ, Matt. 20, 28, Rom. 3, 24. Eph. 1, 1. 1 Pet. 1, ] 8. 19, and every where where the subject is spoken of in Seriptttre. Therefore, i. e. because redeemed, and because redeemed at Bach a price; glwify God, i. e. honour him, and so act as to cause Lim to be honoured by others. In. your iody as a temple consecrated to his worship, and employed only in his eeiTice.

The following words, and in your spirit, which are God’s, may have been added, because the body alone i*! not the object of redemption, and therefore the obligation of the redeemed to be devoted to the sei-vice of God pertains also to the soul. As however these words are not found in the great majority of the oldest manuscripts, most modern editors omit them.