The Divine Lamp

Archive for the ‘1st Epistle to the Corinthians’ Category

Confraternity Commentary on 1 Corinthians 1:1-9

Posted by carmelcutthroat on January 1, 2023

1 Cor 1:1-3. 1 Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, and Sosthenes our brother, 2 to the church of God at Corinth, to you who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be saints with all who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place—their Lord as well as ours.  3 Grace be to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Cor 1:1-3: Greeting. 1. Paul is a real apostle, like the Twelve, called and sent immediately by Christ to witness to His Resurrection. God took the initiative when Paul was minded rather to persecute the Church (Acts 9:3 ff). Sosthenes was probably the president of the synagogue at Corinth mentioned in Acts 18, 17. If so, he was converted so as to become our brother and is now associated with St. Paul at Ephesus. 2. They are sanctified, consecrated, set apart at Baptism by incorporation in Christ Jesus. All Christians are called saints by St. Paul (1 Cor 6:1f; 1 Cor 7:14; 14:33; Rom. 1:7; 8,:28; etc.), an external distinction which calls for internal holiness. Their Lord and ours: the word “Lord” is added here to complete the sense. Paul would emphasize the fact that Jesus Christ is the Lord of all, possibly because some at Corinth consider Christ as in a particular way their own (cf. 1 Cor 1:12-13; 2 Cor. 10:7). It is possible that “theirs and ours” refers to “every place”: their place would then be Achaia of which Corinth was the capital, and ours the places evangelized by Paul and Sosthenes; or Gentile places as opposed to Jewish places. 3. Salutation; cp. Rom. 1:7. God the Father and Jesus Christ are equally the source of grace.

1 Cor 1:4-94 I give thanks to my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus, 5 because in everything you have been enriched in him, in all utterance and in all knowledge; 6 even as the witness to the Christ has been made so firm in you 7 that you lack no grace, while awaiting the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ, 8 who will also keep you secure unto the end, unimpeachable in the day of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.  9 God is trustworthy, by him you have been called into fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 Cor 1:4-9: The Gifts of God. 5. In all utterance and in all knowledge: the spiritual gift of knowledge for instruction. The Corinthians received all that they were prepared to receive. St. Paul later speaks of the limitations of their knowledge (1 Cor 3:1 ff). 7. The appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ: this refers to the Second Coming of Christ at the end of the world but can also be applied to His coming to the individual at death in the paticular judgment. Christ is pointed out as the center of all things by the fact that “Christ” appears ten times in the first nine verses of this Epistle

Posted in 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, Bible, Confraternity Commentary, Notes on 1 Corinthians, Notes on the Lectionary, Scripture | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Cardinal Joseph MacRory’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians 1:1-3

Posted by carmelcutthroat on January 1, 2023

SUMMARY OVERVIEW OF 1 CORINTHIANS CHAPTER 1

In the introduction lo the Epistle (1 Cor 1:1-9) the Apostle begins with a. salutation (1 Cor 1:1-3), to which succeeds a thanksgiving for divine favours conferred upon the Corinthian Church (1 Cor 1:4-7), and the expression of a well-grounded hope for the continuance of such favours in the future (1 Cor 1:8-9). Then the body of the Epistle opens with a solemn appeal against divisions and in behalf of unity (1 Cor 1:10), followed by a brief account of the nature of these divisions as reported to him (1 Cor 1:11-12), a summary reprobation of them (1 Cor 1:13), and a thanksgiving to God that St. Paul himself had given no occasion for them (1 Cor 1:14-17). As one of the chief causes of these divisions was an undue importance attached by the Corinthian Christians to worldly learning and eloquence in their teachers, the Apostle now shows that it was by Christ’s authority and for the greater glory of the Cross of Christ that he had preached as he did (1 Cor 1:17-18). Such & Gospel had been foretold (1 Cor 1:19); and whether account be taken of the Christian preachers (1 Cor 1:20) or the doctrine they preached (1 Cor 1:21-25) or the converts they made (1 Cor 1:26-28), God has set the wisdom of the world at nought, in order that the triumph of the Christian faith may not be due to human means (1 Cor 1:29), but to God alone in Christ Jesus (1 Cor 1:30-31).

1 Cor 1:1. PAUL, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes a brother,

The Apostle begins by declaring his Apostolic dignity. Many have held that he does so because his authority had been already questioned at Corinth. This is possible, but it must be borne in mind that in other Epistles where there could be no such motive, he begins by asserting his Apostleship (1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1; Tit. 1:1). An opening reference to it was natural in order to lend weight to his words.

“Called to be an Apostle.” This rendenng of κλητὸς which is that of the Rheims version, is adopted also by the Revised Version. The words, which occur elsewhere in combination only in Rom. 1:1, prove that St. Paul had a Divine call to the office of Apostle. They hardly prove, what we know otherwise to be the fact (Acts 9:15-16), that he was called immediately by Christ, for in the next verse here we have the phrase  “called to be saints” applied to the Christians of Achaia or of Corinth itself, and it cannot be meant that they were called immediately by Christ without man’s intervention. It is not clear whether we should read “Jesus Christ” with manuscripts א A L P, Syr., Copt., Arm., Aeth., or  “Christ Jesus” with BD E F G 17, Am. The point is not important, but has interest in connection with the Apostle’s general usage.*

“By the will of God.” It was God’s will, not his own desire nor man’s choice, that was the cause of St. Paul’s being raised to the dignity of the Apostleship. God’s will, then, which is equivalent to God’s command (1 Tim. 1:1), had imposed upon him not only the dignity but also the duties of an Apostle.

“And Sosthenes the brother.” Sosthenes must have been well and favoursbly known to the Christians of Corinth, seeing that St. Paul associates him with himself in this salutation. The only person of the name mentioned in Scripture was the Ruler of the Synagogue in Corinth on the occasion of the Apostle’s first visit to the city (Acte 18:17). Very probably it is he that is referred to here. If so, he had already embraced the Christian faith, and was now with St. Paul at Ephesus. Deissmann (Bible Studies, pp. 37, 142) shows that long before Christians employed it in this sense, ἀδελφὸς (brother) was used of a fellowmember of a religious body.

1 Cor 1:2. To the church of God that is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that invoke the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place of theirs and ours.

“To the church of God that is at Corinth” Ἐκκλησία, which the Latins borrowed, designated in classical Greek the deliberative assembly of all the free citizens of a city. With St. Paul it moans sometimes a local assembly of the faithful of a city or district; then, in a still wider sense, all the faithful—the Church, as we say now (e.g., 1 Cor 10:32; 15:9; Gal. 1:13).

“To them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus.” Many authorities read this clause immediately after “to the church of God,” and before ”that is at Corinth.” Whichever reading be followed, the sense is that in Baptism the members of the Church have been cleansed from their sins and sanctified separated from the world and united in Christ Jesus to the God of sanctity. The plural ἡγιασμένοις (those sanctified) coming after the collective singular, is probably meant to give prominence to the individual responsibility of the sanctified; while the perfect participle does not merely mean, as the aorist would, that they were once sanctified, but implies that their sanctity still does or ought to continue.

“Called to be saints.” As remarked already, this cannot mean that the Corinthian Christians had been called immediately by Christ. They had been called by God, but through the immediate agency of St. Paul and his fellow-workers. It is very significant that St. Paul habitually speaks of all Christians as ”saints” (1 Cor 6:1-22; 14:33; 16:1, 15; Rom. 1:7; 8:27; 15:25-26, 31, etc.), implying thereby that all are sanctified in Baptism, and called to a life of holiness.

“With all that invoke the name,” etc. If this clause is to be connected with the opening words of the verse, as seems more probable, then the sense is that the Apostle salutes not only the church of Corinth, but with it all the Christians of the Roman Province of Achaia, of which Corinth was the capital (cf. 2 Cor. 1:1). The words: “‘in every place of theirs and ours” will then mean: in all the places that have Corinth for their metropolis, and us for their Apostles, and the same people will thus be saluted as in 2 Cor. 1:1. Others prefer to connect the present clause with “called to be saints,” and then the meaning is that the Apostle salutes the Corinthian Christians, who are called to be saints with the same call given to all who invoke the Name of our Lord. Jesus Christ in every place. In this view the last words of the verse: “of theirs and ours ” are most naturally connected with ” the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ,” as though the Apostle wrote: Did I say of our Lord! Rather I ought to say “of their Lord and ours.” In neither of these views is the salutation directed to all the churches of the world; in the first it is directed to all the churches of Achaia. in the second to the church of Corinth alone: and certainly no view of the verse can be correct which would extend the salutation to all Christians and make the Epistle ”catholic,” for such a view is opposed to the whole tenor of the Epistle, which attends throughout to the needs and circumstances of a particular church or at most of the churches of a particular locality.

1 Cor 1:3. Grace to you and peace, from God our father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

In verse1 we have the senders of the greeting, in verse 2 the recipients, and here the greeting itself. This form of salutation, with very slight changes in a few instances, is used by St. Paul in the beginning of all his Epistles. By ” race” some understand with Estius (on Rom. 1:7) all the gratuitous gifts of God that lead to salvation, and by ”peace” the calm and undisturbed possession of them—that holy and happy calm which the world can neither give nor take away. This peace is indeed itself a grace, but it is the fruit of all the others and their crown, and perhaps for this reason is mentioned separately. Others understand by “grace” God’s favour or goodwill (Luke 1:30), and by “peace” all spiritual blessings flowing from that goodwill as their cause.

“From God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” It follows from this that to St. Paul Jesus Christ was God, since He is regarded equally with the Father as the source of grace and peace. For the gratuitous gifts that lead to Heaven can have only God as their source. Christ, then, is the source of grace, nor can the words be fairly interpreted in any other sense. Grammatically, indeed, they could mean “from God the Father of us and of our Lord Jesus Christ,” and in that case there would be no argument afforded by the present text for Christs’ Divinity, but that meaning is absolutely excluded by many passages. where ἡμῶν (our) does not occur and where the formula is: “from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ ” (Gal. 1:3; Eph. 6:23; 2 Tim. 1:2; Tit. 1:4; 2 Cor. 13:3; Philem. 25). By ” God our Father ” is meant here the First Divine Person. The Blessed Trinity could indeed be called “our Father,” as in the Lord’s Prayer, but the mention of the Second Divine Person here immediately after, shows that the First Person is meant. As Christ can be called Lord without excluding the Father from Lordship, so the Father is called God . without excluding Christ from Divinity.

Posted in 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, Bible, Cardinal MacRory, Catholic, Notes on 1 Corinthians, Notes on the Lectionary, Scripture | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Father Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians Chapter 9

Posted by carmelcutthroat on November 5, 2022

 SYNOPSIS OF THE CHAPTER

i.      (1 Cor 9:1-6)He proceeds to show by his own example how offences are to be avoided, and he says that he had refused to accept payment, or the maintenance due to a preacher of the Gospel, both to gain greater merit and for the sake of edification.
ii.      (1 Cor 9:7-19) He then (ver. 7) proves by six arguments (summarised in the notes to ver. 12) that this maintenance is due to himself and other preachers of the Gospel.
iii.     (1 Cor 9:20-23) He shows (ver. 20) that for the same reason he had become all things to all men, that the Corinthians might learn how each one must care for his own edification and the salvation of his neighbour.
iv.     (1 Cor 9:24-27) He urges them (ver. 24) to that same edification, pointing out that our life is a race and trial of virtue, and in them we must run and strive after better things, and after the prize, by abstinence and bodily mortification.

1 Cor 9:1  AM I not I free? Am not I an apostle? Have not I seen Christ Jesus our Lord? Are not you my work in the Lord?

Am I not free? Am not I an Apostle? It may be asked what connection this has with the preceding chapter: it seems to be an abrupt transition to another subject. I reply that Paul had spoken at the end of the last chapter of the necessity of avoiding all that might cause offence. Now, that he may enforce this, he puts himself forward as an example, and points to his having refused to receive any payment for his preaching, and his having earned his bread by his own labours; this cession of his rights he made, both to avoid causing any to offend, and to give an example of singular virtue. He would so teach the Corinthians not to stand upon their rights, especially in the matter of eating idol-sacrifices, out of regard for their neighbours, if they saw that they were thus made to stumble, or led into sin. Yet at the same time Paul, by implication, guards in this declaration the sincerity and authority of his preaching against the false apostles who impugned them; he points indirectly to his having preached the Gospel without money and without price, while the false apostles made gain out of it. He says, therefore: “Am I not an Apostle? am I not free? Am I not within my rights, as the Apostle of Christ, if I demand and receive from you means for my maintenance? Yet this I do not do, because I wish to show you what our neighbour’s salvation demands from us, and how you ought, therefore, to avoid all causes of offence.” Cf. Chrysostom’s homily on this text (No. 20).

Have not I seen Christ Jesus our Lord? Are not you my work in the Lord?  It is clear that I am an Apostle, for I have seen Christ, and been sent by Him to preach the Gospel. Cf. Acts 9:5; 22:18.

Ye are my work in the Lord, because I begat you by the Gospel in Christ. Your Church was built up by me: ye are my building.

1 Cor 9:2 And if unto others I be not an apostle, but yet to you I am. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. A proof of my apostleship may be seen in you, in my preaching, in my miracles, in the toil and the dangers which I have either borne or performed amongst you for your conversion; by such things as by Divine seals have I sealed, confirmed, and proved my apostleship. All these things loudly testify that I am a true Apostle, sent by God to teach and save you.

1 Cor 9:3 My defence with them that do examine me is this.

My defence with them that do examine me is this. Those who ask about my Apostleship may take what I have said as their answer. So Anselm. But Chrysostom and Ambrose just as suitably refer this to the following verse.

To examine or interrogate is a judicial term, and is purposely used by S. Paul to point to the audacity of those who called in question his jurisdiction.

1 Cor 9:4 Have not we power to eat and to drink?

Have not we the power to eat and to drink? Viz., at your expense. This is the glory and defence of me and my apostleship, that it is gratuitous, unlike that of the false apostles. Notwithstanding I have the same right, the same power to look for means from you for my eating and drinking.

1 Cor 9:5 Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister as well as the rest of the apostles and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas?

Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister as well as the rest of the apostles? The Greek is ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα, which the Latin version turns mulierem sororem; and Beza, Peter Martyr, Vatablus, and Valla render sororem uxorem. They argue from this that Paul was married, urging that, though the Greek word stands both for woman and wife, yet here its meaning is fixed to the latter by the term “lead about.” Men do not, they say, lead about sisters but wives.

They mistake: 1. Christ led about women, not as a husband might a wife, but as a teacher is accompanied by disciples and handmaidens, who see to his necessities. Cf. Luke 8:3.

2. It would be absurd to call a sister a wife, and the term sister would be superfluous.

3. The definite article is wanting in the Greek, which would be required if a certain woman, as, e.g., a wife, were designated.

4. It is evident from 1 Cor. 7:8 that Paul was unmarried. This passage is explained at length in the sense I have given by Augustine (de Opere Monach. c. iv.), Jerome (contra Jovin. lib. i.), Chrysostom, Ambrose, Theodoret, Theophylact in their comments on the verse, and by other Fathers generally, except by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. lib. iii.). S. Jerome indeed says that, among the Apostles, Peter was the only one that had a wife, and that only before his conversion. Tertullian’s words (de Monogamia) are: “I find that Peter alone was a husband.”

I say, then, that the phrase here is literally “sister woman,” and denotes a Christian matron who ministered to Paul’s necessities from her means. We have a similar phrase in Acts 13:26, “men brethren,” i.e., Christian men. S. Paul says then that he might, if he so saw fit, lead about a matron to support him, as much as Peter; but he does not do so, because it might be a cause of offence to the Gentiles, whose Apostle he was, and might only cause evil surmisings. So Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Œcumenius, Anselm.

It may be said that Ignatius, in his letter to the Philadelphians, classes Paul among the married. Baronius (a.d. 57, p. 518) and others well reply that Paul’s name was inserted there by later Greek copyists, to serve as an excuse for themselves being married. The oldest and best copies of the Epistles of S. Ignatius, including that of the Vatican and of Sfort, have not S. Paul’s name.

It may be said again that Clement of Alexandria (Strom. lib. iii.) understands this passage of a wife of Paul. I reply, firstly, that that is true, but that he goes on to say that after he became an Apostle she was to him as a sister, not as a wife, which is against the heretics, and in the second place that all the Fathers are against Clement.

And the brethren of the Lord. Brethren is a common Hebraism for kinsmen. James, John, and Judas are here meant. So Anselm.

And Cephas. Nay, as well as Peter, the prince of the Apostles and of the Church.

1 Cor 9:6. Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to do this?

Lapide offers no comment on this verse.

1 Cor 9:7 Who serveth as a soldier, at any time, at his own charges? Who planteth a vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof? Who feedeth the flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock?

Who serveth as a soldier, at any time, at his own charges? Just as it is right for soldiers to be paid and to live on their pay; just as it is right for a vine-grower to eat of the fruit of his vine, for a shepherd of the milk of the flock that he feeds, so is it right for the preachers of the Gospel to live of the Gospel, of their vineyard the Church, and of their flock, the members of Christ. The Apostle is beginning here to prove in various ways his right to receive payment for his preaching, that all after him might know that this is owing to preachers of the Word of God, and that he may show how undeniable and how clear is the right that he has freely given up by refusing to receive payment out of regard to the Corinthians. He so acted in order that by this generosity of his he might draw them to Christ and help forward their salvation. I will summarise his reasons at ver. 12.

1 Cor 9:8 Speak I these things according to man? Or doth not the law also say; these things? 

Speak I these things according man? Do I prove or strengthen my arguments by human reasons merely, and by similitudes drawn from the life of the soldier, the vine-grower, the shepherd? By no means. Nay, rather I establish and fortify them from the law of God.

1 Cor 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses: Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?

For it is written in the law of Moses, &c. Deut. 25:4. The reason doubtless was that it was right that the animals who laboured should also eat. Hence God forbade that the mouths of the oxen that trod out the corn should be muzzled, to prevent them from eating of what they trod out. It was the custom in Palestine, as it is now in some places, for the oxen to thresh out the grain by treading the corn-ears with their hoofs. That this is the literal meaning appears from the words in which it is enjoined on the hard-hearted Jews.

It may be objected that the Apostle seems here to exclude this meaning, by saying, “Doth God take care for oxen?” Abulensis, commenting on Deut. 25, says that the literal sense of the verse is twofold: (1.) It refers to oxen, as has just been said, but not principally; (2.) The sense which is uppermost and chiefly intended by the Holy Spirit is that given by the Apostle here when he speaks of preachers. God, he says, takes care for oxen in the second place, but for teachers in the first; and therefore it is more the literal sense of the injunction that preachers should be maintained than that oxen should. But it is evident that the first only of these two is the literal sense. For the word ox denotes a preacher typically only, and not literally. Otherwise the literal sense would be wholly allegorical, which is absurd. For the literal sense is that which is the first meaning of any sentence; the allegorical or typical is that which is derived from the literal. As then the shadow of a body is not the body itself, so the typical sense cannot be the literal, but is merely shadowed forth by the literal.

The literal meaning therefore of the verse in Deuteronomy is that which I have given, but the mystical is that which is given by the Apostle, that preachers must be maintained, and that they are to live of the Gospel, just as the ox is fed on what he treads out; and since God’s chief care is for the former, the mystical meaning of the text is, as the Apostle says, the one that is uppermost.

Notice that it is a matter of faith that God takes care for oxen: for by His providence He cares for the sparrows (S. Matt. 10:29), and for the young ravens that call upon Him (Ps. 147:9), and for all animals, as the Psalmist frequently says, and especially throughout Psalm 104. The Apostle means, therefore, that in this precept God’s chief care was not for oxen, but for preachers like S. Paul, who are like oxen in labouring and treading out the corn in the Lord’s field and threshing-floor, and are to be allowed to live of the Gospel.

1 Cor 9:10. Or doth he say this indeed for our sakes? For these things are written for our sakes: that he that plougheth, should plough in hope and he that thrasheth, in hope to receive fruit.

Or doth he say this indeednfor our sakes? For these things are written for our sakes. The argument is here, as so often in S. Paul’s writings, from the mystical, not the literal sense; or rather it is an à fortiori argument from the literal to the mystical sense, thus: If the ox lives on what he treads out, much more may an Apostle live of the Gospel. Cf. Tertullian (contra Marcion, lib. v. c. 7) and Theodoret (qu. xxi. in Deut.). Observe here that, though the literal sense is the first in time, yet the mystical is the first in importance, and the one chiefly intended by the Holy Spirit.

That he that plougheth should plough in hope. Just as those that plough and thresh do so in hope of being partakers of what is reaped and threshed out, so too the preacher may hope for support because of his preaching. Of this hope Ovid speaks (Ep. ex Ponto, lib. i. vi. 30): “Hope it is that gives courage to the farmer, and intrusts the seeds to the ploughed-up furrows, to be returned with heavy interest by the kindly earth.

From this passage we may argue à fortiori that to work in hope of an eternal reward is an act of virtue, and that this act therefore is meritorious. Hence the Sorbonne, as Claudius Guiliandus testifies in his remarks on this passage, has defined as erroneous the proposition that “he that strives for the sake of a reward, and would not strive unless he knew that a reward would be given, deprives himself of the reward.” The Council of Trent has the same definition (Sess. vi. can. 31).

1 Cor 9:11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we reap your carnal things?

No commentary is given on this verse.

1 Cor 9:12 If others be partakers of this power over you, why not we rather? Nevertheless, we have not used this power: but we bear all things, lest we should give any hindrance to the gospel of Christ.

If others be partakers of this power over you, why not we rather? The Apostle proves by six arguments that he and other ministers of the Word of God and the Church may receive their expenses from their flocks: (a) By the examples of the other Apostles (1 Cor 9:5); (b) by comparisons drawn from the practice of soldiers, shepherds, and agriculturists (1 Cor 9:7); (c) from the law of Moses (1 Cor 9:9); (d) from the example of the priests and Levites of the Old Testament, who lived on the sacrifices offered on the altar that they served (1 Cor 9:13); (e) from the ordinance of God and of Christ (1 Cor 9:14); (f) from the very nature of the case, from the positive command of God, as well as from the law of nature, which declares that, as payment is due to a workman, so is support to a minister of the Word, not as the price of sacred things, which would be dishonouring to them and simoniacal, but as what is necessary for them to fitly discharge their sacred functions for the people’s sake. Hence this support is owing to them as a matter of justice. So Chrysostom.

Nevertheless we have not used this power: but we bear all things. We have not claimed our right to maintenance, but endure the utmost poverty, and undertake every kind of evil to relieve that poverty by working with our hands.

Lest we should give any hinderance to the gospel of Christ. He would not receive money for his support, lest he should give occasion to covetous or injudicious men to hinder the Gospel and bring obloquy upon it. That there was no cause of offence given here by the Apostle, but that it was received from others, and that it was in him a work of supererogation to refuse to receive payment, appears from what has gone before, and from 1 Cor 9:15, where he says, “It were better for me to die than that any man should make my glorying void.”

1 Cor 9:13 Know you not that they who work in the holy place eat the things that are of the holy place; and they that serve the altar partake with the altar?

Know you not that they who work in the holy place eat the things that are of the holy place? The priests and Levites partake of the victims offered, and the tithes and firstfruits. The Greek for “minister” is “labour.” The office of the priests was to labour at killing, cutting up, skinning, boiling, and burning the victims, all of which are laborious, and under other circumstances would be the work of butchers.

And they that serve the altar partake with the altar. He does not say, says S. Chrysostom, the priests, but they which wait at the altar, that we may see that constant attendance on sacred things is required from the ministers of the temple of Christ, who partake of the good things of the Temple. On the other hand, now-a-days, none are less often at the altar than some who derive the greatest profit from the altar and from tithes. These are condemned by the Council of Trent.

1 Cor 9:14 So also the Lord ordained that they who preach the gospel should live by the gospel.

So also the Lord ordained. S. Luke 10:7; S. Matt. 10:10, 11, 14.

 1 Cor 9:15 But I have used none of these things. Neither have I written these things, that they should be so done unto me: for it is good for me to die rather than that any man should make my glory void.

for it is good for me to die rather than that any man should make my glory void. His glorying has for its subject the preaching of the Gospel without charge, or his work of liberality, free grace, and supererogation, as is evident from ver. 18. It appears from this that it is an Evangelical counsel to preach the Gospel without charge, as is now done by some apostolic and religious men. So Theophylact, Theodoret, and Anselm. Cf. also Chrysostom and Anselm.

Observe that S. Paul does not speak of his glory but his glorying, viz., that that he could make before God and before men, especially before the false apostles, who were held of great account and sumptuously maintained by the Corinthians. Cf. 2 Cor. 11:7, for similar “glorying.”

1 Cor 9:16 For if I preach the gospel, it is no glory to me: for a necessity lieth upon me. For woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel. 

.—For woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel. It appears from this that strict injunctions were given to the Apostles (S. Matt. 28:19) to preach the Gospel and teach all nations, insomuch that, if they had neglected to do so, they would have sinned mortally. For on those that neglect this their duty he pronounces the woe of the wrath of God and of hell. By the same injunctions all pastors, Bishops, and Archbishops are now bound. Cf. 1 Cor 1:17.

1 Cor 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation is committed to me. 

For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward. That is, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, Œcumenius, and Anselm say, if I freely preach without charge, I have not merely the reward given to a work that has been enjoined on me, as other Apostles have, but the exceeding reward of abounding glory given to a work not enjoined, but heroically undertaken by a soul that is of its own accord generous towards God.

But if against my will. Compelled by a command of God, or under fear of punishment. Willingly here denotes the doing a thing of one’s own motion, one’s own accord, and free will; unwillingly, the doing it under order, being moved and forced by the will of another.

A dispensation is committed unto me. I shall not have that supreme glory I spoke of, but neither shall I sin, because I fulfil my duty, and do what I am ordered. For this commission of preaching the Gospel was intrusted to me. But though I do not sin, yet I act as a slave, or as a steward in matters intrusted to his care, not of his own accord, but merely doing what he ought to do, because compelled to it by his Lord’s command. Cf. S. Luke 17:8. So the Fathers cited understand this passage, and that this is the meaning appears also from the context.

Some explain it differently in this way: If I preach the Gospel willingly I have merit and reward, because of my own free will I fulfil the command of Christ; but if I do it unwillingly, I fail to attain merit and reward, because I act under compulsion. A dispensation of the Gospel is committed unto me, and so by me, though unwilling, Christ’s Gospel is propagated, and others profit, though I do not. This seems to be the simple meaning of the words by themselves. This explanation is favoured by S. Thomas, Lyranus, and the Ambrosian commentary; but the context requires the former sense.

1 Cor 9:18 What is my reward then? That preaching the gospel, I may deliver the gospel without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

What is my reward then? That glorious and supreme reward spoken of.

Observe that reward is put by metonymy for merit, or for a heroic and meritorious work, that calls for a great reward. This work, he goes on to say, is to preach the Gospel without charge.

From these words it is evident that not all good works are matters of precept, but that some are works of counsel and supererogation, and that such merit with God an illustrious crown of glory. So S. Chrysostom, Ambrose, S. Augustine (de Opere Monach. c. 5), and Bellarmine (de Monach. lib. ii. c. 9).

The other Apostles, being full of zeal for God, would as well as Paul have preached the Gospel freely, if they might thence have hoped for a greater harvest of souls, and greater glory before God. But this they might not hope for, for the faithful were generous to them, and the Jews devoted to them, and of their own accord they supplied their needs. Cf. Acts 4:34. But Paul, as one outside the order and number of the twelve Apostles, called to the apostolate after the death of Christ, had to gain a recognition of his authority, and he judged it useful to that end that he should preach the Gospel without charge. Moreover, the Corinthians, though rich, were covetous; and, therefore, Paul preached freely to prevent them from supposing that he sought their goods instead of themselves; but from the more generous Thessalonians and Philippians he accepted support. In short, Paul wished by this course of action to shut the mouth of the Jews, who hated him, and of the false Apostles. He says this indeed in 2 Cor. 11:12.

That I abuse not my power in the Gospel. That I may not use my undoubted right and liberty to the detriment of the Gospel. Not that it really is an abuse to receive money for preaching the Gospel, but that it is the employment of a lesser good. Abuse is used here for use to the full, as it is in chap. 7:31. Cf. a similar use of the word in S. Paulinus (Ep. 2.)

It may be said that Ambrose here understands the word to mean literal abuse, which is sin, when he says: “They who use their right, when it is inexpedient to do so, or when another suffers loss, are guilty, and therefore sin.” I reply that this is true when they can easily give up their right, and when others suffer great loss by their not yielding; for charity then bids us give way. These conditions, the Ambrosian commentary seems to think, existed with Paul and the Corinthians.

But the opposite is far more true. It was a very difficult matter for the Apostle to yield his right of maintenance at the hands of the Corinthians, because by so yielding he had to spend nights without sleep, while he laboured with his hands to procure food for himself and his companions; while the Corinthians, who were numerous and rich, might easily have maintained him. Nor ought they to have taken offence at this, for the other Apostles were maintained by their flocks, and all law and reason say that he who labours for another should be maintained by him. The Apostle, therefore, wished to set a noble example of poverty, sincerity, and zeal, for the greater commendation and spread of the faith among those who were young in it, and the avaricious rich. But such a heroic work as this is not a precept, but a counsel of charity. Therefore, in the next verse, he says that in such matters he is free.

1 Cor 9:19 For whereas I was free as to all, I made myself the servant of all, that I might gain the more.

For whereas I was free as to all, I made myself the servant of all. I humbled myself to all things, even to want and hunger; I accommodated myself to the weaknesses of all, insomuch that, when I saw the Corinthians slow and niggardly in their support of the Apostles, I refused to accept any payment from them, that I might gain all by condescending to their infirmity.

1 Cor 9:20 And I became to the Jews a Jew, that I might gain the Jews:

1 Cor 9:21 To them that are under the law, as if I were under the law, (whereas myself was not under the law,) that I might gain them that were under the law. To them that were without the law, as if I were without the law, (whereas I was not without the law of God, but was in the law of Christ,) that I might gain them that were without the law.

To them that are under the law, as if I were under the law. To the Jews I became as one under the Mosaic law. This took place, e.g., says Œcumenius, when he circumcised Timothy, when, after purifying himself, he went to the Temple, because he had a vow (Acts 21:26).

To them that were without law, as if I were without law. To the Gentiles I became as though I followed nature only as my light and leader, as the Gentiles do. So Œcumenius, Theophylact, and Chrysostom.

1 Cor 9:22 To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak. I became all things to all men, that I might save all.

I became all things to all men. Not by acting deceitfully or sinfully, but through sympathy and compassion, which made me suit myself to the dispositions of all men, so, as far as honesty and God’s law allow, that I might be able to heal the indispositions of all. Cf. S. Augustine (Epp. 9 and 19): “Not by lying, but by sympathy; not by cunning craftiness, but by large-hearted compassion was Paul made all things to all men.”

The Apostle does not sanction what men of the world wish for and do, viz., the accommodating ourselves through right and wrong to all men, feigning to be heretics with heretics, Turks with Turks, pure with the pure, and unclean with those that are unclean. This he condemns (Gal. 2:11 et seq.). The advice of S. Ephrem (Attende tibi, c. 10) is sound: “Have charity with all and abstain from all;” and again the apophthegm of S. Bernard, which embraces every virtue: “Live so as to be prudent for yourself, useful to others, pleasing to God.” S. Jordan, S. Dominic’s successor in the Generalship of the Order, used to say, as his life relates: “If I had devoted myself as closely to any branch of learning as I have to that sentence of S. Paul’s, ‘I am made all things to all men,’ I should be most learned and eminent in it. Throughout the whole of my life I have studied to accommodate myself to every one: to the soldier I was as a soldier, to the nobleman as a nobleman, to the plebeian as a plebeian; and thus I always endeavoured to do them good in this way, while on the watch that I did not lose or hurt my soul while benefitting them.”

1 Cor 9:23 And I do all things for the gospel’s sake, that I may be made partaker thereof.

And this I do all things for the gospel’s sake, that I may be made partaker thereof. That I may with other preachers receive, in due time, fruit of the Gospel that I have preached. The Greek denotes a partaker with others. Hence in the second place Chrysostom understands “partaker thereof” to mean a fellow-sharer of the faithful in the Gospel, i.e., of the crowns laid up for the faithful. And Chrysostom rightly points to the wonderful humility of Paul, in putting himself on a level with even ordinary Christians, when he had surpassed not only the faithful, but all the other Apostles in his labours for the Gospel. Cf. 1 Cor. 15:10.

1 Cor 9:24 Know you not that they that run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize. So run that you may obtain.

Know you not that they that run in the race, , but all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize? For this I preach the Gospel without charge; for this I am made all things to all men; for this I labour, that I may obtain that best prize of all, given to those who run in this race.

As it is in a race, so is it in the Christian course: it is not all that run that receive the prize, but those only that run well and duly reach the appointed goal. I say duly, or according to the laws of the course which Christ the Judge has laid down for those that run, and according to which He has promised the prize to those that run well. When, therefore, one is mentioned, more are not excluded. For the Apostle does not mean to say, as Chrysostom well remarks, that only one Christian surpasses the rest, and is more zealous of good works, and will receive the prize; for a similitude does not hold good in all points, but only in that one which is expressed. The comparison here is that, as in a race he who runs well receives the prize, so in Christianity he who runs well will receive a crown of glory. And this is evident from what is added, “So run that you may obtain,” i.e., not one, but each one. Moreover, in a race it is often not only the first, but the second, third, or fourth who also receives a prize.

Still the Apostle says one, not three or four, because he is chiefly looking at that glory and superexcellent reward given, not to all the elect, but to those few heroic souls that follow, not only the precepts, but also the counsels of Christ. For he is looking to the prize which he is expecting for himself, in having been the only Apostle to preach the Gospel without charge, in having surpassed all the other Apostles in the greatness of his labour and his charity, in having become all things to all men. He says in effect: O Christians, do not merely run duly, that ye may obtain, but run most well and most swiftly, that you may carry off the first and most splendid prize of glory. It is a sluggish soul that says, “It is enough for me to be saved and reach heaven.” For each one, says Chrysostom, ought to strive to be first in heaven, and receive the first prize there.

Some understand this passage to refer to the mansions or crowns and prizes prepared for each of the elect, and would read it, “Let each so run that he may obtain his prize.” But this explanation is more acute than simple.

Anselm again takes it a little differently. Heathens, heretics, reprobates, he says, run, but the one people of elect Christians receives the prize. But the Apostle is speaking to Christians only as running, and he urges them to so run that they may obtain the prize to which they are called by the Gospel of Christ.

So run that you may obtain. I.e., obtain the crown of glory and the prize of victory. The allusion is to those that ran in the public games for a crown as the prize, with which they were crowned when victorious. Cf. notes to Rev. 3:2. The word so denotes the rectitude, the diligence, the swiftness, and the perseverance especially required in order to win the prize. The course of Christ was marked by these qualities, that course which all ought to put before themselves for imitation. S. Bernard (Ep. 254) says: “The Creator Himself of man and of the world, did He, while He dwelt here below with men, stand still? Nay, as the Scripture testifies, ‘He went about doing good and healing all.’ He went through the world not unfruitfully, carelessly, lazily, or with laggard step, but so as it was written of Him, ‘He rejoiced as a giant to run his course.’ No one catches the runner but he that runs equally fast; and what avails it to stretch out after Christ if you do not lay hold of Him? Therefore is it that Paul said, ‘So run that ye may obtain.’ There, O Christian, set the goal of your course and your journeying where Christ placed His. ‘He was made obedient unto death.’ However long then you may have run, you will not obtain the prize if you do not persevere even unto death. The prize is Christ.” He then goes on to point out that in the race of virtue not to run, to stand still, is to fail and go back. “But if while He runs you stand still, yon come no nearer to Christ, nay, you recede from Him, and should fear for yourself what David said, ‘Lo, they that are far from Thee shall perish.’ Therefore, if to go forward is to run, when you cease to go forward you cease to run: when you are not running you begin to go back. Hence we may plainly see that not to wish to go forward is nothing but to go back. Jacob saw a ladder, and on the ladder angels, where none teas sitting down, none standing still; but all seemed to be either ascending or descending, that we might be plainly given to understand that in this mortal course no mean is to be found between going forward and going back, but that in the same way as our bodies are known to be continuously either increasing or decreasing, so must our spirit be always either going forward or going back.”

1 Cor 9:25 And every one that striveth for the mastery refraineth himself from all things. And they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown: but we an incorruptible one.

And every one that striveth for the mastery refraineth himself from all things. Every wrestler, &c., refrains from everything that may endanger his success, 1. The allusion is to the Isthmian games, celebrated at Corinth in honour of Neptune and Palæmon, in which the victor was crowned with a pine-wreath. Of these games the poet Archias thus sings:—

“Four Argive towns the sacred contests see,
And two to men, and two to gods belong;
Love gives the olive, Phœbus sunny fruit,
Palæmon poppy, and Archemorus the pine.”

2. There is consequently an allusion also to the athletes, the wrestlers, and boxers, who fought with their fists; to the runners, who strove for the prize for speed; to all who contested, whether with hand, or foot, or the whole body, for the prize.

3. All these abstained from luxurious living, and only lived on the necessities of life. This is what the Apostle alludes to when he says, reefraineth himself from all things. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. lib. iii.), following Plato (de Leg. lib. viii.), adds that they also refrained from all sexual intercourse. For as lust weakens, enervates, and exhausts the body, so do continence and chastity strengthen the body, and much more the mind. S. Ephrem, too, in his tractate on the words, “It is better to marry than to burn,” explains this abstinence from all things spoken of here to be abstinence from all lust.

4. The course is this present life, or each one’s state in the Church, and especially that of an evangelist; the runner or wrestler is each Christian. Hence, S. Dionysius (de Eccles. Hierarch. cvii.) says that those who are baptized are anointed with oil, that they may understand that by this sign they are anointed to be Christ’s athletes, and are consequently called to fight a holy fight for faith and godliness. He adds that it is the practice, too, to anoint them when dead, as athletes perfected by death. He says: “The first anointing called him to a holy fight; the second shows that he has finished his course and been perfected by death.”

5. In this course and contest the antagonist is the world, the flesh, and the devil; the athlete’s diet is moderate food tempered with fasting; the fight consists in the castigation of the body, and all the arduous offices of virtue, which are accomplished with a conflict, whether external or internal;—especially is the preaching and spreading of the Gospel such a fight; and from such arises the victory over the world, the flesh, and the devil. The prize is the incorruptible crown of eternal glory for which Paul expresses his longing in 2 Tim. 4:8. The punishment inflicted on the conquered is rejection and eternal confusion (1 Cor 9:27). As the athlete, by abstinence, exercise, and toil, subdues and exercises his body, and prepares it for the race-course or the contest, that he may conquer by lawful and generous effort, and may obtain a corruptible crown, so much more to obtain the eternal crown do we Christians, and especially I, your Apostle, keep under and exercise my body by fasting, labour, and weariness, and so much more severely do I, as an athlete in the Divine contest, exact from myself all the offices of those that fight. I do this, lest my body lose the strength derived from continency and a hard life by luxurious living, and then dwindle down into the helplessness of a self-indulgent life. But as I have to fight against the world, the flesh, and the devil, let me rather imitate the athletes, and so conquer and be crowned. Come, then, O Corinthians, run with me in this course; abstain not only from things offered to idols, because of scandal, but also from luxuries—from wine and lust—that you may gain the victory and carry off the prize. This exhortation to abstinence was occasioned by the question of idol-sacrifices, as I said at the beginning of chapter 8.

Epaminondas, leader of the Thebans, having fought most bravely in battle, and being wounded, even to death, asked, as he was dying, whether his shield were safe and the enemy slain; and when they answered “Yes” to both questions, he said: “Now is the end of my life; but a better and higher beginning is at hand: now is Epaminondas being born in so dying.” So Valerius Maximus relates. If Epaminondas so strove for a temporal victory, for praise and glory that are evanescent, and died so joyfully and gloriously what shall the soldier of Christ do for the crown that fadeth not away, for the glory that knows no ending? Tertullian (ad Martyres, c. iv.) says excellently: “If earthly glories can so overcome bodily and mental delights as to throw contempt on the sword, fire, crucifixion, wild beasts, and torments, in order to obtain the reward of human praise, I may well say that these sufferings are but little to undergo to obtain the glories of heaven. Is glass worth as much as true pearls? Who therefore would not most joyfully suffer for the true glory as much as others suffer for the false?

Virgil says of Junius Brutus, who ordered his sons to be put to death for conspiring against the Romans with the Tarquins—

“The love of Rome him mastered with boundless thirst for praise;”

so we may say of the Christian—

“The love of Christ will conquer, and heaven’s unquenchable thirst.”

Listen to what S. Chrysostom says (de Martyr, vol. iii.): “You are but a feather-bed soldier if you think that you can conquer without a fight, triumph without a battle. Exert your strength, fight strenuously, strive to the death in this battle. Look at the covenant, attend to the conditions, know the warfare—the covenant that you have entered into, the conditions on which you have enrolled yourself, the warfare into which you have thrown yourself.”

It is clear from this, says S. Chrysostom, that faith alone is not sufficient for salvation, but that works also are requisite, and heroic efforts, and especially no small abstinence from all the allurements of the world. For, as S. Jerome says (Ep. 34 ad Julian): “It is difficult, nay, it is impossible for any one to enjoy both the present and the future, to fill here his belly and there his soul, to pass from one delight to the other, to show himself glorious both in heaven and in earth.”

S. Augustine piously consoles and animates Christ’s athletes by reminding them of the help that God gives (Serm. 105). He says: “He who ordered the strife helps them that strive. God does not look upon you in your contest as the spectators do on the athlete: for the populace warms him by shouts, but cannot lend him any help. He who arranged the contest can provide the crown, but cannot lend strength; but God, when He sees His servants striving, helps them when they call upon Him. For it is the voice of the combatant himself in Psalm 94:18, who says, ‘When I said, my foot slippeth, Thy mercy, O Lord, held mc up.’ ” S. Dionysius too (de Eccl. Hier. cii.) says: “To them that strive the Lord promises crowns as God. He has laid down the rules of the contest by His wisdom. He has appointed rewards most fair and beautiful for the conquerors; and, what is surely more Divine, He Himself, as supreme loving-kindness and goodness, conquers in His warriors; and while He indwells within them, He fights for their safety and victory against the forces of death and corruption.”

1 Cor 9:26 I therefore so run, not as at an uncertainty: I so fight, not as one beating the air.

I so fight I, not as one beating the air. The comparison is still maintained. I fight as an athlete, but I do not spend my toil for nought, but I wound my enemy, i.e., I subdue my body and my flesh; and when I have subdued this foe, the remaining two, the world and the devil, are easily overcome. For the world and the devil cannot kill us, wound us, strike us, tempt us, approach us, except through the body and its organs, the eyes and ears and tongue and other members.

1 Cor 9:27 But I chastise my body and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.

But I chastise my body and bring it into subjection. I chastise means, says S. Ambrose, “I repress it by fastings;” “I wound it with stripes,” says S. Basil (de Virginitate); “I starve it,” says Origen. S. Augustine (de Utilit. Jejun.) says: “The devil often takes it upon him to protect the flesh against the soul, and to say, ‘Why do you thus fast?—you are laying up punishment in store for yourself, you are your own torturer and murderer.’ Answer him, ‘I keep it under, lest this beast of burden throw me headlong.’ ” For our flesh is the devil’s instrument; it is, says S. Bernard, “the snare of the devil” (Serm. 8 in Ps. xci.). Erasmus, following Theophylact and Paulinus (Ep. 58 ad. Aug.), renders the Greek verb, “I make it black and blue,” or “I make the eyes of a black and bloody colour.” This last is, as Hesychius and Suidas say, the literal rendering of the word. But all others in general take the word to mean subdue, coerce, bruise. Castigate in the Latin, or “keep under,” as the text, suits both renderings, but the second is better, as being at once plainer and more near to the Greek—taking ὑπωπιάζω to be synonymous with ὑποπιέζω.

This keeping under or castigation of the body is effected by fastings, hair-shirts, humiliations, scourgings, and other mortifications of the flesh. Hence some think that Paul was in the habit of scourging his body. This is certainly the literal meaning of the Greek, which is rendered by Beza, Melancthon, Castalion, and Henry Stephen “bruise.” But a bruise is not caused except by a blow, whether from a stick, or a scourge, or some other instrument. Moreover, fasting (which some, as, e.g., Ambrose, Gregory, and Chrysostom, think was Paul’s discipline) is not so much a strife and contest as a preparation for them; for of it he has already said, “Every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things.” Cf. also Jacob Gretser (de Discipl. lib. i. c. 4).

Moreover, as Anselm remarks, as well as Gregory, in a passage to be quoted directly, the Apostle, while he keeps under and scourges his body, at the same time scourges and wounds the devil, his antagonist, who is in alliance with our carnal concupiscence, and lies in hiding within the foul jungle of the flesh, and through it tempts and attacks us.

Lest perhaps… I myself should become a castaway. Lest I be a reprobate from God and excluded from heaven. Maldonatus (Notæ Manusc.) learnedly says that, as the comparison is still with the arena, a castaway here is one who is conquered in the fight; and that S. Paul’s meaning is, “Lest while I teach others to conquer I myself be conquered.” The Apostle is speaking not of eternal reprobation, which is in the mind of God, but of that temporal reprobation which is the execution of the eternal. He is referring to Jer. 6:30: “Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them.”

1. Hence it is clear that the Apostle is not speaking (as in 2 Cor. 13:7), as some think, of the reprobation of men, as if his meaning were, “What I preach that I practise: I do not fare sumptuously, but I keep under my body, lest I be a castaway and reprobate of men, and regarded as one not doing what he teaches.” For Jeremiah clearly speaks of God’s rejection, not men’s; and reprobation and reprobate always refer to this when they are spoken of absolutely, and not restricted to men, as they are restricted in 2 Cor. 13:7. Hence appears the uncertainty to us of grace and predestination. Paul feared being condemned, and will you believe that your faith cannot but save you?

2. It also follows that Paul had no revelation of his salvation. Cf. S. Gregory (lib. vi. Ep. 22, ad Gregoriam).

3. And that he was not so strong in grace but that he might fall from it.

From this passage, it is evident that the Christian’s fight consists especially in bringing the body into subjection. For this foe is an inward foe, and one most hard to withstand, and therefore the snares of the flesh are to be dreaded more than all others. We ought also to get ourselves ready for this fight by the athlete’s training, that is, by temperance, and in this temperance we should begin the fight, and in it daily increase, grow strong, and come to perfection. The Christian, therefore, must begin with conquering gluttony. When that is done, it will be easier for him to conquer other vices, as Cassianus and others say. Hence it appears that the Christian fighter must keep under his body, lest its lusts make him a castaway; and that, therefore, bodily mortification, by watchings, fastings, and other afflictions, is the right way to salvation, and is the most suitable instrument for perfecting virtue, and for the complete subdual of vices, if it be done with discretion, and in proportion to one’s strength and health. Cf. S. Thomas (ii. ii. qu. 188, art. 7).

But let us hear what the ancient doctors of the Church have to say on this head. Ambrose (Ep. ad Eccl. Vercell.) says: “I hear that there are men who say that there is no merit in fasting, and who scoff at those who mortify their flesh, that they may subdue it to the mind. This S. Paul would never have done or said if he had thought it folly” (let our Protestant friends observe this); “for he says, as though boasting, ‘I keep under my body and bring it into subjection, lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.’ Therefore, those who do not mortify their body, and who wish to preach to others, are themselves regarded as reprobates. What new school has sent forth these Epicureans to preach pleasure and advise luxury? The Lord Jesus, wishing to strengthen us against the temptations of the devil, fasted before He strove with him, that we might know that we cannot in any other way overcome the blandishments of the evil one. Let these men say why Christ fasted if it were not to give us an example to do likewise.”

S. Gregory (Morals, lib. xxx. c. 26) says: “Nebuzaradan, the chief of the cooks, destroyed the walls of Jerusalem as he destroys the virtues of the soul when the belly is not kept in check. Hence it is that Paul took away his power from the chief of the cooks, i.e., the belly, in its assault on the walls of Jerusalem, when he said, ‘I keep under my body and bring it into subjection.’ Hence it is that he had said just before, ‘So fight I, not as one that beateth the air.’ When we restrain the flesh, it is not the air but the unclean spirits that we wound with the blows of our abstinence; and in subduing what is within we deal blows to the foes without. Hence is it that, when the King of Babylon orders the furnace to be heated, he has a heap of tow and pitch thrown into it, but nevertheless the fire has no power over the children of abstinence; for though our old enemy put before our eyes a countless number of delicacies to increase the fire of our lust, yet the grace of the Spirit from on high whispers to us, bidding us stand our ground, untouched by the burning lusts of the flesh.”

S. Basil (Hom. de Legend. Gentil. Libris) says: “The body must be mortified and kept in check like a wild beast, and the passions that take their rise from it to the soul’s hurt must be kept in order by the scourge reason, lest by giving free rein to pleasure the mind become like a driver of restive and unbroken horses, and be run away with and lost. Amongst other sayings there is one of Pythagoras which deserves to be remembered. When he saw a certain man looking after himself with great care, and fattening himself by sumptuous living and exercise, he said: ‘Unhappy man! you are ever engaged in building for yourself a worse and worse prison!’ It is said too of Plato, that owing to his vivid realisation of the harm that arises from the body, he fixed his Academy at Athens in an unhealthy spot, that he might reduce the excessive prosperity of the body, as a gardener prunes a vine whose boughs stretch too far. I too have often heard physicians say that extremely good health is fallacious. Since, therefore, care for the body seems to be harmful to body and soul alike, to hug this burden and to be a slave to it is evident proof of madness. But if we study to despise it, we shall not easily lose ourselves in admiration of anything human.” S. Basil again (in Reg. Fusius Disp. Reg. 17) says: “As a muscular build and good complexion put a stamp of superiority on the athlete, so is the Christian distinguished from others by bodily emaciation and pallid complexion, which are ever the companions of abstinence. He is thereby proved to be a wrestler indeed, following the commands of Christ, and in weakness of body he lays his adversary low on the ground, and shows how powerful he is in the contests of godliness according to the words, ‘When I am weak, then am I strong!’ ”

S. Chrysostom says here: “ ‘I mortify my body’ means that I undergo much labour to live temperately. Although desire is intractable, the belly clamorous, yet I rein them in, and do not surrender myself to my passions, but repress them, and with wearisome effort bring under nature herself. I say this that no one may lose heart in his struggle for virtue, for it is an arduous fight. Wherefore he says,I keep under my body and bring it into subjection.He did not say,I destroy and punish it,for the flesh is not an enemy, butI keep it under and bring it into subjection,because it is the property of my Lord, not of an enemy; of a trainer, not a foe;lest by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.If Paul feared this, being such a teacher as he was; if he had any dread, after having preached to the whole world, what are we to say?

S. Jerome, writing against Jovinian, a heretic, an opponent of fasting, of chastity, and asceticism, ably defends these duties, and about the end of lib. ii. he says: “The fact that many agree with your opinions is a mark of luxuriousness; and you think it adds to your reputation for wisdom to have more pigs running after you to be fed with the food or the flames of hell. Basilides, a teacher of luxury and filthy practices, has after these many years now been transformed into Jovinian, as into Euphorbus, that the Latin race might know his heresy. It was the banner of the Cross and the severity of preaching” (let the Protestants mark this) “which destroyed the idol-temples. Impurity, gluttony, and drunkenness are endeavouring to overthrow the fortitude taught by the Cross. False prophets always promise pleasant things, but they give not much satisfaction. Truth is bitter, and those who preach it are filled until bitterness.”

Cassianus (de Instit. Renunt. lib. v. c. xvii. et seq.) says: “Do you want to listen to the true athlete of Christ striving according to the lawful rules of the contest? He says, ‘I therefore so run not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air, but I keep under my body and bring it into subjection, lest when I have preached to others I myself should be a castaway.’ Seest thou how he has placed in himself, that is in his flesh, the hottest part of the battle, and has thus put it on a firm base, and how he has made the fight consist in simple bodily mortification and in the subjection of his flesh?” And then a little afterwards he repeats these words of the Apostle, and adds: “This properly has to do with the sufferings of continence, and bodily fasting, and mortification of the flesh. He describes himself as a strenuous combatant of the flesh, and points out that the blows of abstinence that he directs against it are not in vain, but that he has gained a triumph by mortifying his body. That body, having been punished by the blows of continence and wounded by the bruises of fastings, has given to the victorious spirit the crown of immortality and the palm that never fadeth.… So fights he by fastings and affliction of the flesh, not as one that beateth the air, i.e., that deals in vain the blows of continence; but he wounds the spirits who dwell in the air, by mortifying his body. For he that says, ‘not as one that beateth the air,’ declares that he strikes some one that is in the air.”

Further, not only for the sake of lust, but to subdue pride and break down all vices, and to cultivate every virtue, the body must be mortified, as S. Jerome says (Ep. 14 ad Celantiam): “They who are taught by experience and knowledge to hold fast the virtue of abstinence mortify their flesh to break the soul’s pride, in order that so they may descend from the pinnacle of their haughty arrogance to fulfil the will of God, which is most perfectly fulfilled in humility. Therefore do they withdraw their mind from hankering after variety of foods, that they may devote all their strength to the pursuit of virtue. By degrees the flesh feels less and less the burden of fastings, as the soul more hungers after righteousness. For that chosen vessel, Paul, in mortifying his body and bringing it into subjection, was not seeking after chastity alone, as some ignorant persons suppose: for fasting helps not only this virtue but every virtue.”

Lastly, the holy hermits of old, in their zeal after perfection, mortified their bodies to a degree that seems incredible. And that this was pleasing to God is seen from the holiness, the happiness, and the length of their lives. We may read for this Jerome, in his life of S. Hilarion, S. Paul, S. Malchus; Athanasius in his life of S. Antony; Theodoret in his life of S. Simeon Stylites, who for eighty years stood under the open sky night and day, hardly taking food or sleep. Sagacious men have observed in their lives of the Saints that scarcely any Saints have been illustrious for their miracles and for their actions but such as were eminent for their fastings and asceticism, or who afflicted their bodies, or were afflicted by God with diseases, or by enemies and tyrants with tortures and troubles; that other Saints, who led an ordinary life, were of great benefit to the Church, but seldom if ever performed any miracles.

Posted in 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, Bible, Catholic, Fr. Lapide, Notes on 1 Corinthians, Scripture | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 16:19-24

Posted by carmelcutthroat on December 20, 2018

GREETINGS AND APOSTOLIC BLESSING

During St. Paul’s three years’ stay in Ephesus, the capital of Proconsular Asia, the Gospel had spread throughout the whole province and Christian communities were established everywhere. Knowing, therefore, the ties of charity by which the faithful of Asia and of Ephesus were bound to those of Corinth, the Apostle, before giving his final blessing, sends the salutations of all the faithful.

1 Cor 16:19. The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house, with whom I also lodge.

The churches of Asia, i.e., the Christian communities of Proconsular Asia, the Roman province that lay along the western coast of Asia Minor with Ephesus as its capital (cf. Acts xix. 10). Aquila and Priscilla, who had contributed so much to the foundation of the Church at Corinth. See on Rom 16:3, 4; cf. Acts 18:1 ff.

In the Lord, i.e., out of charity and regard for their common faith.

The church in their house. Both at Rome and at Ephesus the house of Aquila and Priscilla served as a meeting-place of the faithful for religious purposes (Rom 16:3-5). As yet there were most likely no special buildings set aside for Christian worship anywhere.

With whom I also lodge. These words, and their equivalents in the Vulgate here, should be omitted as wanting in all the best MSS. and versions.

1 Cor 16:20. All the brethren salute you. Salute one another with a holy kiss.

All the brethren, i.e., all the other faithful of Ephesus besides those that met at the house of Aquila and Priscilla.

A holy kiss. The kiss of peace was once a prominent feature in the religious assemblies of the Christians (Rom 16:16; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thess 5:26; 1 Peter 5:14), but it was restricted at an early date to the members of the same sex (Const. Apost. ii. 57; viii. 11).

1 Cor 16:21. The salutation of me Paul, with my own hand.

With my own hand. The Apostle had dictated this Epistle to an amanuensis, as was his custom (Rom 16:22), but now he writes his own salutation as a guarantee of the authenticity and genuineness of the letter (2 Thess 2:2; 3:17).

1 Cor 16:22. If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha.

Love (φιλει), i.e., with a personal and special affection.

Anathema. See on Rom 9:3.

Maranatha. This is a combination of two Aramaic words, Marana tha, which mean “Our Lord, come.” Probably the meaning is that the Lord should come to judge the world and put into execution the sentence of condemnation merited by those who do not love Jesus. This Aramaic expression was perhaps a liturgical invocation in common use among the Apostles and their converts, like alleluia or hosanna with us (Didache 10; Const. Apost. vii. 26).

1 Cor 16:23. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

The grace, etc. See on Rom 16:24; cf. 2 Cor 13:13; Gal 6:18, etc.

1 Cor 16:24. My charity be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen.

My charity, etc. By these closing words, “the Apostle shows that he has written, not from anger or indignation, but from the care he has for them, since after so great an accusation he does not turn away from them, but loves and esteems them” (St. Chrys.).

Posted in 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, Catholic, St Paul | Leave a Comment »

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 16:10-18

Posted by carmelcutthroat on December 20, 2018

PARTICULAR RECOMMENDATIONS

 
As soon as St. Paul had received news of the troubles at Corinth he sent Erastus and Timothy to Macedonia (Acts 19:22), giving the latter instructions to go thence to Corinth for the purpose of putting in order the disturbances there (1 Cor 4:17). Meanwhile, having been more correctly informed of the gravity of the situation by special legates who had come to him from Corinth, the Apostle immediately wrote the present letter, in which, as we see here, he recommended to the faithful the young disciple who would soon be among them.

1 Cor 16:10. Now if Timothy come, see that he be with you without fear, for he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do.

If Timothy come. This seems to indicate that St. Paul had some doubt about Timothy’s going to Corinth. The Apostle had sent him to Macedonia first, and perhaps the situation there demanded more of his time and attention than had been anticipated. At any rate, this letter was written after Timothy had departed for Macedonia, probably because there was reason to fear that he might not reach Corinth at all, or that he might arrive there too late.

Without fear, i.e., that you respect him and make his stay among you as easy as possible. Timothy was young (1 Tim 4:12), and perhaps somewhat lacking in courage (1 Tim 5:21-23; 2 Tim 1:6-8; 2:1, 3, 15; 4:1, 2) ; and yet he was by no means to be despised, for he was doing the work of the Lord, i.e., preaching the Gospel, like St. Paul himself.

1 Cor 16:11. Let no man therefore despise him, but conduct ye him on his way in peace: that he may come to me. For I look for him with the brethren.

I look for him, etc., i.e., St. Paul was awaiting at Ephesus the return of Timothy with Erastus, and probably some others who had gone with them to Macedonia (Acts 19:22). The meaning is not that Paul and the brethren at Ephesus were expecting Timothy alone.

1 Cor 16:12. And touching our brother Apollo, I give you to understand, that I much entreated him to come unto you with the brethren: and indeed it was not his will at all to come at this time. But he will come when he shall have leisure.
To show that he was in no wise envious of Apollo or opposed to the great Alexandrian’s again visiting the Corinthians, St. Paul now makes it plain that he had endeavored to get him to pay them another visit. Apollo declined for the time being, probably not wishing to visit the Corinthians while there existed any special faction devoted to him to the detriment of the Church as a whole (1 Cor 3:4-6).

I give you to understand (Vulg., vobis notum facio) should be omitted, to agree with the Greek.

The brethren, who were very likely the bearers of this letter.

1 Cor 16:13. Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, do manfully, and be strengthened.

The mention of Apollo brought back to the Apostle’s mind the factions at Corinth, so bitterly condemned in the first part of this letter. He, therefore, exhorts the faithful to be on their guard against the evils which imperil the unity and peace of their Church. Let them stand fast in the faith which has been preached to them, by which alone they shall be strengthened so as successfully to resist and overcome their adversaries.

1 Cor 16:14. Let all your things be done in charity.

Let all your things, etc., i.e., let all you do be done in charity. This virtue of charity is at all times necessary, but the Corinthians had special need of it, as was evident from the abuses and disorders that had grown up among them. The Apostle is giving a counsel here, not a precept (St. Chrys. and others, against Estius and many more).

1 Cor 16:15. And I beseech you, brethren, you know the house of Stephanas, and of Fortunatus, and of Achaicus, that they are the first-fruits of Achaia, and have dedicated themselves to the ministry of the saints:

The Apostle now speaks of the delegates who had brought to him the Corinthians’ letter and were probably to be the bearers of his reply. The best MSS. omit all mention in this verse of Fortunatus and Achaicus. Hence the household of Stephanas are the first-fruits of Achaia, i.e., the first of that province to embrace the faith (1 Cor 1:16). Stephanas and his family had dedicated themselves to works of charity among the faithful. Some think Stephanas was a leader of the Corinthian Church.
The first phrase here, And I beseech you, brethren, is doubtless to be joined to verse 16, making the remainder of the present verse a parenthesis.

In the Vulgate et Fortunati, et Achaici should be omitted.

1 Cor 16:16. That you also be subject to such, and to every one that worketh with us, and laboureth.

That you also be subject, etc. This is the thing to which the Apostle started in the beginning of the preceding verse to exhort the Corinthians. His counsel is that they should show great respect and gratitude to such generous and holy benefactors as Stephanas and his family. There is most probably no question here of the submission and obedience which subjects are bound to show to superiors.

To every one that, etc. Better, “to every one that helps and cooperates.”

1 Cor 16:17. And I rejoice in the presence of Stephanas, and Fortunatus, and Achaicus, because that which was wanting on your part, they have supplied.

Fortunatus and Achaicus are not mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament. It is the common opinion that they, with Stephanas, brought to St. Paul the letter of the Corinthians and also carried back the reply to it, this present letter.

That which was wanting, etc., i.e., the lack of you, the void occasioned by your absence. The Apostle is rejoiced by the presence of these Corinthian legates who, in a way, make up for the absence of all the other faithful whom he would love to see; he wishes he could see all, but in these three he is reminded of all.

1 Cor 16:18. For they have refreshed both my spirit and yours. Know them, therefore, that are such.

They have refreshed, etc. These legates, by carrying the Corinthians’ letter to St. Paul, had done a welcome service both to them and to him.

Know them, therefore, etc., i.e., to such as render such valuable
 services as these legates have done special respect and recognition are due.

Posted in 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, Catholic, St Paul | Leave a Comment »

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 16:1-9

Posted by carmelcutthroat on December 20, 2018

Text in red, if any, are my additions.

THE COLLECTION FOR THE POOR IN JERUSALEM, AND THE APOSTLE’S FORTHCOMING VISIT TO CORINTH

In concluding his letter to the Corinthians St. Paul, according to his frequent practice, adds a few counsels and directions to his usual greeting and final benediction. He begins here by describing the way in which the collection for the faithful in Jerusalem should be made (1 Cor 16:1-4); and he hopes it will be completed and ready to be dispatched upon his arrival in Corinth soon after Pentecost (1 Cor 16:5-9).

1 Cor 16:1. Now concerning the collections that are made for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, so do ye also.

The collections. The singular is used in the Greek (λογιας). The way the Apostle begins to speak of this matter, “concerning,” etc., shows that it was among other things on which the Corinthians had sought his advice (1 Cor 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1).

For the saints, i.e., for the poor among the faithful of Jerusalem. St. Paul had spoken to the Corinthians on this subject in a previous letter which is now lost (1 Cor 5:9), and it is mentioned again in 2 Cor 8:1-24; 9:1-15 and in Rom 15:26. (“It is mentioned again,” i.e., the collection, not the letter).

When Paul and Barnabas went forth to convert the Gentiles, they promised to be mindful of the poor in the Holy City (Gal 2:9 ff.). As we know from Josephus, Palestine was very much disorganized at this time. This circumstance, together with the fact that the Christians were at all times objects of special hate and persecution, made their poverty and destitution such that systematic efforts had to be exerted on their behalf throughout the Gentile Churches.

We know nothing about the particulars of the Galatian collection here referred to.

The collectis of the Vulgate should be singular, to agree with the Greek.

1 Cor 16:2. On the first day of the week let every one of you put apart with himself, laying up what it shall well please him; that when I come, the collections be not then to be made.

On the first day, etc. Better, “Every first day of the week” (κατα μιαν σαββατων), i.e., every Sunday, which, as we know also from Acts 20:7; Rev 1:10, had been already substituted for the Sabbath. It is certain that the Christians from the beginning kept Sunday holy, instead of the Sabbath, in honor of our Lord’s Resurrection. The first explicit evidence, however, which we have that Sunday was called the Lord’s day is in Rev 1:10.

What it shall well please him. Literally, “To the extent in which he may be prosperous,” i.e., as much as he can afford. St. Paul wanted the Christians thus freely to put aside what they could afford every Sunday, so that upon his arrival the entire collection might be finished and ready to send away.

1 Cor 16:3. And when I shall be with you, whomsoever you shall approve by letters, them will I send to carry your grace to Jerusalem.

Whomsoever, etc. To remove all suspicion on the part of his adversaries the Apostle will let the Corinthians choose their own delegates to represent them in carrying their collection to Jerusalem.

By letters, i.e., whomsoever the Corinthians shall approve as delegates St. Paul will send with commendatory letters to the Christians in Jerusalem.

1 Cor 16:4. And if it be meet that I also go, they shall go with me.

If it be meet, etc., i.e., if the collection be a large one (Estius); or, if it seem good to you (MacR.). St. Paul is willing to accompany the Corinthian delegates all the way to Jerusalem, if this is desirable. Cf. Rom 15:23; Acts 20:1-6.

From 2 Cor 8 and 9 we gather that the collection promised to be very generous, and from Acts 20 and 21 we see that St. Paul did go to Jerusalem.

1 Cor 16:5. Now I will come to you, when I shall have passed through Macedonia. For I shall pass through Macedonia.

I will come to you, as he had already promised (1 Cor 4:19; 11:34; 14:6).

Through Macedonia. As we learn from 2 Cor 1:15, 16, St. Paul had first intended to go directly from Ephesus to Corinth, and thence to Macedonia; but conditions in the Corinthian Church were such that he was obliged to change his plan (2 Cor 1:23). This change of plan was afterwards made use of by his enemies in an attempt to show that he was fickle and lacking in decision (2 Cor 1:17).

I shall pass through, etc. Literally, “I am passing through,” etc. This seems to indicate that the Apostle did not intend to stay long in Macedonia.

1 Cor 16:6. And with you perhaps I shall abide, or even spend the winter: that you may bring me on my way whithersoever I shall go.

To show his affection for the Corinthians and to compensate for his deferred visit, St. Paul now says he will prolong his stay among them when he arrives. He was writing this letter around Paschal time, and intended to remain at Ephesus until Pentecost (verse 8). Then he would go to Macedonia, arriving in Corinth sometime in the autumn, perhaps to tarry until spring.

That you may bring me, etc. (προπεμψητε) , i.e., that they fit him out with the things necessary for his journey, wherever that may be. It was only from a Church that he especially loved and trusted that the Apostle would thus seek help.

1 Cor 16:7. For I will not see you now by the way, for I trust that I shall abide with you some time, if the Lord permit.

Now by the way. He means that his coming visit will not be a hurried one, as it would be if he passed through Corinth on his way to Macedonia. This verse seems strongly to support the view that St. Paul had made a flying visit to Corinth, but it does not require it.

1 Cor 16:8. But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost.

I will tarry (επιμενω), i.e., I will stay on. This shows that he intended to remain at Ephesus until Pentecost, nearly two months more. We know, however (Acts 19:25), that the Apostle was obliged to leave Ephesus sooner than he had planned.

1 Cor 16:9. For a great door and evident is opened unto me: and many adversaries.

The reason why St. Paul wished to tarry at Ephesus for some two months longer was because there was offered him there a great opportunity of preaching the Gospel with much fruit, and of opposing his adversaries with success (Acts 19:19 ff.).

Great . . . evident, i.e., a great and effectual opening for good.

Posted in 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, Catholic, St Paul | Leave a Comment »

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:35-58

Posted by carmelcutthroat on December 20, 2018

HOW THE BODY WILL RISE; THE QUALITIES OF THE RISEN BODY

The fact of the resurrection being established, the Apostle now goes on to describe how it will take place. He first shows, by illustrations drawn from what takes place in the natural order of the world around us, that the risen body will be indeed the same body that was buried, but vested with vastly different qualities (1 Cor 15:35-50). The manner of the resurrection, the transition from the present to the future life, and the effects of the resurrection are next discussed (1 Cor 15:51-58).

1 Cor 15:35. But some man will say: How do the dead rise again? or with what manner of body shall they come?

The resurrection of the body was a hard doctrine, a stumbling-block to many of the Christians, as it had been before to some among the Jews (cf. Matt 22:23-33). It was difficult to see how it could come to pass. Wherefore St. Paul now begins to explain the nature of the resurrection body and the process whereby the body that is buried is brought back to life.

Again and or are not represented in the Greek, and shall they come (Vulg., venient) should be in the present tense, “are they coming?”

1 Cor 15:36. Senseless man, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die first.

Senseless man. Literally, “O man without understanding.” As in the vegetable world the seed that is planted must die first, i.e., must go into dissolution and lose the form it has before it can burst forth into new life, so in like manner the human body, passing through the process of death, will rise to a new and more beautiful life; as dissolution and corruption do not make a return of life impossible to the seed, so neither do the death and corruption of the body make its resurrection impossible. Our Lord also said: “Unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, itself remaineth alone,” etc. (John 12:24, 25).

1 Cor 15:37. And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not the body that shall be; but bare grain, as of wheat, or of some of the rest.

Although the risen body will be essentially the same as the body that was laid in the grave, it shall be endowed with new and more excellent qualities, just as the wheat and the corn are more wonderfully clothed than the bare grain from which they spring. The identity of the body does not depend upon its material particles, which are in continual flux during this life, and are completely renewed every few years; but upon the soul or form which is the principle of physical life and continuity.

“As the body of Jesus after His Resurrection was endowed with many strange and new qualities (John 20:19, 26), so as often to be unrecognized by His disciples (Luke 24:16, 31, 37; John 20:14; 21:4), though yet it was the same body (Luke 24:39, 40; John 20:20, 27); so we learn that the body we sow in the grave is not the body that shall be, but that the resurrection body—the spiritual body, as St. Paul calls it—while it exhibits visible and unequivocal signs of its connection with the body out of which it has arisen, will be possessed of many wondrous faculties which are denied to us here” (Lias).

1 Cor 14:38. But God giveth it a body as he will : and to every seed its proper body.

God giveth … as he will. Better, “God giveth … as hehath willed” ( ηθελησεν) . The use of the aorist points back to the creation when God established the laws of nature, according to which every seed unfolds into a particular determinate body with the qualities which befit its state. Hence the body that is planted in the grave will unfold in the resurrection into a new form, endowed with new qualities according to the will of God and the consequent laws that govern its nature. The body was made to be the instrument and companion of the soul, and therefore it was also designed that the body should ultimately share the eternal destiny of the soul. In this life certain accidents and qualities appear in the body, corresponding to its earthly condition; but in the resurrection, like the seed that has unfolded into its new existence, the body will be clothed with qualities unknown to it now.

The vult of the Vulgate should be voluit.

1 Cor 15:39. All flesh is not the same flesh: but one is the flesh of men, another of beasts, another of birds, another of fishes.

The principle which has just been applied to plant nature is now applied to the animal kingdom. That God should make a resurrection body, differing in qualities from our present bodies, ought not to cause any more surprise or doubt than do the different varieties and forms of bodily life (σαρξ) which we behold in men, beasts, birds and fish. If God can produce the latter, why can He not make also the former?

Flesh (σαρξ) before of men is not in any of the best MSS., nor in the Old Latin or Vulgate, but is plainly understood; on the contrary, it is expressed before birds in most of the best MSS., but is omitted there by A. Rec, Vulgate and Peshitto.

1 Cor 15:40. And there are bodies celestial, and bodies terrestrial: but, one is the glory of the celestial, and another of the terrestrial.

The same principle is now extended to the heavenly bodies. Since God can make bodies differing as widely as do the sun, moon and stars, on the one hand, and the animals and plants, on the other, who will say that it is impossible for Him to make still another, namely, a resurrection body?
The ετερα, another, of this verse, as distinguished from the αλλη, another, of the following verse, shows the wide difference there is between the heavenly and the earthly bodies about which the Apostle has been speaking: it is a difference in kind; while the various heavenly bodies of the following verse are the same in kind but different in degree.

1 Cor 15:41. One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, and another the glory of the stars. For star differeth from star in glory.

Even among the heavenly bodies themselves there is a great variety, one star differing from another in beauty and excellence. It is not strange or impossible, therefore, that there should be a resurrection body different and more excellent than our earthly body. Indirectly also this argument proves that among the risen bodies of the just there will be a vast variety according to their respective merits. There will be hereafter splendordispar; coelum commune (St. Aug.).

1 Cor 15:42. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it shall rise in incorruption.

In this and the two following verses the Apostle digresses somewhat to enumerate certain qualities which shall be common to all glorified bodies, distinguishing them from mortal bodies. Our present body is sown in corruption, etc., i.e., the mortal body that is buried in the earth and given over to corruption, shall rise free from death and from everything that tends to death; it will be impassible.

It shall rise (Vulg., surget) in this and in the two following verses should be in the present tense, according to the Greek.

1 Cor 15:43. It is sown in dishonour, it shall rise in glory. It is sown in weakness, it shall rise in power.

It is sown in dishonour, etc., i.e., the mortal body throughout its life is a prey to innumerable miseries, and especially when planted in the grave it becomes subject to corruption with all the revolting and dishonoring accompaniments of the latter; but it shall rise in glory, shining as the sun in the kingdom of heaven (Matt 13:43).

It is sown in weakness, etc. The mortal body is at all times a weak and imperfect instrument of the soul, slow to act and easily fatigued, constantly requiring food and rest to repair its wasted strength; but in the resurrection it will possess the gift of agility, making it the strong, swift and perfect instrument of the soul.

1 Cor 15:44. It is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body. If there be a natural body, there is also a spiritual body, as it is written:

A natural body. Our present bodies are called “natural,” or “animal,” because they are subject to the laws and conditions of animal life, such as vegetation, generation, nutrition and the like; but after the resurrection they will no longer need these material aids that serve a present and temporary purpose. Then they shall be spiritual, i.e., entirely subject to the needs and wishes of the glorified soul. This does not mean that the risen body ceases to be material, but that it is freed from those conditions and functions which serve only a temporal end and which make it the imperfect instrument of the glorified spirit. The endowment by which the body thus partakes of the nature of the soul, while not losing its material character, is called the gift of subtility.

If there be a natural body, etc. From the existence of a natural body accommodated to the needs of man’s animal life, the Apostle concludes the existence of a spiritual body suited to the conditions and needs of the soul’s glorified life. The body was created to be the instrument of the soul, and therefore the conditions  of its existence should vary according to the different states of the soul.

As it is written. Better, “Even so it is written” (the Vulg. should read: Sic et scriptum est). These words are connected with the following verse in Greek. The Apostle is going to cite a passage of the Old Testament (Gen 2:7), to prove what he has just said about the existence of a natural and of a spiritual body.

1 Cor 15:45. The first man Adam was made into a living soul; the last Adam into a quickening spirit.

The Apostle’s argument here is that there should be two bodies, one natural or animal, and one spiritual, because mankind has two heads, from whom respectively they derive a different life. From the first man Adam, who, in virtue of his origin, abstracting from his elevation to the supernatural order to which he had no claim, had only a natural, or animal body, mankind could derive only natural bodies having the animal qualities mentioned above, in verses 41-43. But from thelast Adam, Jesus Christ, the head and author of regenerated humanity (Rom 5:14), whose soul was at all times essentially spiritual and lifegiving, being filled from the first moment of its existence with the fulness of the graces of the Holy Ghost, and whose body at the Resurrection was allowed to manifest the glorious qualities which always belonged to it by reason of the Hypostatic Union of the divine and human natures,—from such a spiritual head the mystical members can inherit only a supernatural and spiritual body. St. Paul is considering Christ’s spirit as it was at the Resurrection in particular; for it was then that the risen Christ possessed the fulness, not only of grace, but of glory, and that He became in a special manner the communicating principle of grace and glory, for body as well as soul, to the members of His mystical body.

It is true that Adam from the beginning was elevated to the supernatural order, that his soul before the fall was endowed with habitual grace and with many other spiritual gifts, and that, had he not sinned, his natural body would have been transformed into a spiritual and immortal body; but St. Paul is not at present considering any of these endowments. He is confining himself to what was essentially and naturally due to Adam as a creature, and to what consequently could be inherited from him in the natural order by his descendants.

A living soul is a Hebraism signifying a being that has a soul.

A quickening spirit, or “life-giving spirit,” means a being having a spirit that gives life to itself and to others. Therefore, as we inherit our natural body from the first Adam, so we shall inherit our supernatural or spiritual body from Christ, the second Adam.

1 Cor 15:46. Yet that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; afterwards that which is spiritual.

According to the plan of divine Providence the natural or animal body precedes the supernatural or spiritual body. “Even in the order of nature we see that in one and the same being the imperfect precedes the perfect” (St. Thomas).

1 Cor 15:47. The first man was of the earth, earthly : the second man, from heaven, heavenly.

The first man, etc., i.e., Adam, the first head of the human race, had a body that was earthly in its origin, having been made from the dust of the earth (Gen. 2:7); it was therefore naturally subject to disease, death and corruption. But the second man, i.e., Christ, the second head of the human race, was from heaven because, as a Divine Person, He was the true Son of God, coexisting eternally with the Father; and in time He took a human body, being “made of a woman” (Gal 4:4).

The word heavenly (Vulg., coelestis) is wanting in all MSS. except two of inferior authority (F G). Some authorities (Rec. with A and Peshitto) insert “the Lord” before from heaven.
 
1 Cor 15:48. Such as is the earthly, such also are the earthly: and such as is the heavenly, such also are they that are heavenly.

The first and the second Adam have bequeathed to their descendants bodies like their own respectively. The first had a mortal and earthly body, and so all his children have inherited bodies that are destined to death and corruption. But the heavenly Adam will give to all His spiritual descendants a body like His own, heavenly, immortal, glorious.

1 Cor 15:49. Therefore as we have borne the image of the earthly, let us bear also the image of the heavenly.

As we have borne, etc., i.e., before our Baptism we bore the image of the earthly man, that is, a body subject to corruption and death; but now let us bear, etc., i.e., let us become spiritual and lead a holy life, so that in the resurrection we may deserve to have a heavenly and glorified body conformable to the divine image, the risen body of Christ.

It is disputed whether this verse is hortatory or declarative. The great weight of authority is in favor of the former (φορεσωμεν, let us bear), rather than the latter (φορεσομεν, we shall bear). Note that the difference is one letter, ω in the former and ο in the latter.

Therefore (Vulg., igitur) at the beginning of the verse should be replaced by “And,” et, in accordance with all the Greek MSS.

1 Cor 15:50. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God: neither shall corruption possess incorruption. 

The Apostle now instructs his readers that a real change must take place in our bodies before they can enter heaven. Substantially they shall remain the same, but their qualities must be changed completely. 

Flesh and blood cannot possess, etc., i.e., the earthly, natural, corruptible body which we have inherited from the first Adam cannot enter into heaven and eternal beatitude.

Corruption, i.e., a corruptible body, destined for corruption and dissolution.

Possess incorruption, i.e., inherit incorruptible life. In the Vulgate possunt (with A C D E F G) should be potest according to the two oldest MSS.

1 Cor 15:51. Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again: but we shall not all be changed.

Coming now to describe the way the dead shall rise at the end of the world, the Apostle first solves a difficulty that might arise out of the preceding verse, namely, if our corruptible bodies cannot inherit incorruptible life, what about the just who will be living when Christ appears on the last day? In reply the Apostle says: I tell you a mystery, i.e., a truth of revelation, which human means could not discover (1 Thess 4:14). What is this mystery? It is that the just who are living at the Second Coming of Christ shall not die, but shall be suddenly changed from their corruptible to an incorruptible and glorious state.

This interpretation is (a) according to the best reading of the second part of this verse; (b) it is in harmony with the context, verses 50 and 52, and with the whole drift of St. Paul’s argument; (c) it agrees with the explanation of the same doctrine given by St. Paul elsewhere (1 Thess 4:15-17; 2 Cor 5:1-9; 2 Tim 4:1), and with the teaching of St. Peter on the subject (1 Peter 4:5); (d) it alone gives to mystery the proper and obvious meaning of that term; (e) it finds approval in the words of the Creed, “He shall come to judge the living and the dead”; (f) it has the support of practically all the Greek Fathers, and of all modern exegetes.

There is no “mystery” in St. Paul’s mind about the dead, good or bad, rising again. Neither is there any sense in: We shall not all be changed of this verse, and “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,” etc., of the following verse. In fact, we shall not be changed here is in direct contradiction with the words, we shall be changed of the next verse.

The reading, therefore, of the second part of this verse, which is found in our version, in the Codex Bezae, and in the Vulgate, and which was commonly accepted by all the Latin Fathers and Latin versions from the time of Tertullian, must be rejected as erroneous for the reasons given above. The Council of Trent, in making the Vulgate the official version of the Church, was well aware that it contained some wrong readings; but when these are of minor importance, or can receive a correct interpretation from other parallel passages of Scripture, as in the present instance, there is no difficulty. Moreover, the Council approved of all the parts of the original Vulgate, “as they were wont to be read in the Catholic Church”; but the East never read this verse as it is in the Vulgate. “If the Vulgate in the present passage were interpreted to mean that all the just without exception are to rise from the dead at the last day, it would not merely contradict the inspired text and the Creeds, but would be hopelessly at variance with itself” (Lattey, in Westm. Ver.).

The reading, therefore, of the second part of this verse which is adopted by all modern scholars, Catholic and non-Catholic, and which has the support of the Greek MSS. B E K L P, of practically all cursives, and of most versions, is: “We shall not all sleep (die), but we shall all be changed.” A rival reading of  א C F G and of the cursive no. 17, if read without punctuation, might have the same meaning, thus:  “we shall all sleep (die) not but we shall all be changed.” Generally, however, this reading is understood to agree with that of the Vulgate, and is given as follows: “We shall all sleep (die), but we shall not all be changed.”

While it is practically certain that the reading of this verse which we have adopted is the only correct one, it must be admitted that the Vulgate reading, taken by itself, can receive an orthodox explanation. Thus, we shall all indeed rise again may be taken to refer to mankind as a whole, without including the few that will be alive at the end (cf. Titus 1:12, 13; Heb 9:27). In like manner, the words, we shall not all be changed can mean that all the dead shall not be glorified.

It is objected against the above interpretation (a) that verse 22 of this chapter, Rom 5:12, and Heb 9:27 seem to say that all men must die; (b) that St. Paul seemed to expect to be still alive when Christ would come. Answer: (a) Even though all men do not actually die, still there is in them all the liability to death, but the penalty can be taken away by God (St. Thomas, Summa, 1a 2ae, qu. 81, a. 3, ad 3). (b) St. Paul did not really believe or mean to teach that the end of the world was at hand in his time. Doubtless he had no revelation on this subject. If here he associates himself with those who are to be alive at the last day, he elsewhere (1 Cor 6:14; 2 Cor 4:14) speaks of being among those who are to be raised up from the dead at that time. Hence he seems to have been uncertain about the time of the Lord’s coming.

1 Cor 15:52. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall rise again incorruptible: and we shall be changed.

In a moment, etc. These words indicate the swiftness with which the dead shall be called from their graves and the bodies of the living just glorified at the last day.

The last trumpet, i.e., the last sign by which the living and the dead shall be summoned to judgment. Perhaps it will be the voice of Christ (John 5:28), or the voice of an archangel (1 Thess 4:15), or some other signal from on high. The expression, “trumpet,” is metaphorical, being borrowed from the instrument used by the Jews to convoke their religious assemblies (Num 10:2-10).

The dead shall rise again incorruptible, i.e., the just shall rise clothed with glorified bodies.

We shall be changed, i.e., the just who are alive at the last day shall not die as others do, but shall pass in the twinkling of an eye from their mortal to an immortal and glorious state.

1 Cor 15:53. For this corruptible must put on incorruption; and this mortal must put on immortality.

The Apostle again insists upon the necessity of the transformation already spoken of in verse 50. The just who are in their graves must put on incorruptible bodies, and those who are still living must exchange their mortal frames for immortal and glorified bodies.

1 Cor 15:54. And when this mortal hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory.

Most authorities repeat here both clauses of the preceding verse. The Vulgate reading in this place, however, is found in the Sinaitic MS. and in some other versions. When the transformation spoken of in the preceding verse is effected, then shall come the complete triumph of Christ over death.

Death is swallowed up, etc. The Apostle is referring to Isaiah 25:8, where the Hebrew reads: “He (Jehovah) hath swallowed up death forever.” The Prophet is announcing that in the heavenly Jerusalem there shall be no more death, or pain, or the like; and St. Paul, slightly modifying the same words, proclaims the victory of Christ in the Resurrection over death and its consequences (Gen 3:19).

In the LXX this passage of Isaias is very obscure: “Death having prevailed swallowed up” (κατεπιεν ο θανατος ισχυσας). With the resurrection, death, the last enemy of man, shall be defeated and life shall triumph in all its glory.

1 Cor 15:55. O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?

At the thought of the final triumph over death the Apostle bursts forth in a hymn of exultation, freely citing the Septuagint of Hosea 13:14. Literally, the Prophet was foretelling the restoration of Israel, which was a figure of the redemption of Christ.

Where is thy victory over the dead who are risen again from their graves? Where now is the sting of thy cruel dominion over them?

1 Cor 15:56. Now the sting of death is sin: and the power of sin is the law.

The sting of death is sin, i.e., death wounds us, like a poisonous serpent, through sin. The reference is to original sin by which death first stung and poisoned our race. And the Mosaic Law which was later given only served, by its numerous regulations and prohibitions, to stir up and strengthen the baneful consequences of original sin (cf. Rom 4:5 ff.; 5:13; 7:7-11).

1 Cor 15:57. But thanks be to God, who hath given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

What the Law could not do, Christ our Lord has done for us. By His death He has conquered both sin and death, satisfying for our transgressions and delivering us from bondage.

Who hath given (Vulg., qui dedit). The Greek has the present tense, which better expresses the victory already begun, although its completion is reserved for the resurrection.

1 Cor 15:58. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast and unmoveable; always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

The Apostle concludes with a brief practical exhortation to the faithful to steadfastness and zeal because of their faith in a glorious resurrection.

In the work of the Lord, i.e., in all good works, performed by command and with the aid of our Saviour. Some think the work of the Lord means the propagation of the faith (1 Cor 16:10).

Knowing that, etc. The Christians should always be mindful of the reward that is in store for them, being assured that whatever good they perform in union with Christ shall not have been done in vain.
These closing words of St. Paul show very clearly how lawful and commendable it is for us to seek a reward for the good we do.

Posted in 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, Catholic, St Paul | Leave a Comment »

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:29-34

Posted by carmelcutthroat on December 20, 2018

Text in red are my additions.
 
A CONFIRMATION OF FUTURE RESURRECTION

After having given the authoritative teaching in regard to the resurrection St. Paul adds, by way of confirmation, two further considerations, one drawn from the practice of some of the faithful, and the other from the labors and trials of the Apostles. A brief exhortation then terminates his proofs of this momentous doctrine.

1 Cor 15:29. Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? why are they then baptized for them?

In the supposition that there is no resurrection of the dead, why, asks St. Paul, do some of the Corinthians receive Baptism for their friends and relatives who died without it? The Apostle is assuming that such a practice had in view the future resurrection of the body.

What was this Baptism for the dead? Many widely different explanations have been given, but by far the most reasonable and the most common is the following: In the time of St. Paul, when a catechumen died without Baptism, it was customary for a friend or relative to have the ceremony performed upon himself on behalf of the dead person, thus publicly affirming, by a symbolic action, that his departed friend or relative had died in union with the Church and was awaiting a glorious resurrection. This is the explanation of Tertullian (Adv. Marc. v. 10; De Resurr. xxviii) and is adopted by the majority of modern exegetes, such as Bisping, Van Steenkiste, Le Camus, Cornely, MacRory, Rickaby, etc. The Apostle simply refers to this practice, which must have been well known to the Corinthians, without approving or condemning it. Although erroneous, it was perhaps tolerated in the early Church until heretics began to attribute to it the efficacy of real Baptism. Cf. Vacant, Bapteme des morts. in Diet, de la Bible; Cornely, h. 1.

Again of this verse should be omitted.

1 Cor 15:30. Why also are we in danger every hour?

If the dead rise not again, then to what purpose are all the sufferings and persecutions endured by the Apostles and by the faithful? If there is no resurrection, all should try to avoid harm and suffering, and get as much as possible out of this present life.

We refers primarily, at least, to the Apostles, who were in constant danger of punishment, prison, and death itself, on account of their faith and the doctrines they preached. This and the two following verses seem directly to prove immortality, and only indirectly the resurrection of the body, unless we say that the danger, persecutions and trials to which the Apostle alludes were occasioned only or chiefly by their preaching the resurrection. This supposition, however, is very improbable, as it is quite evident that the allusion is to sufferings sustained for being a Christian, and for believing and preaching all the doctrines for which Christianity stands. Therefore we hold that these three verses are proofs primarily of immortality, and only secondarily of the resurrection. We must observe, however, with St. Thomas (on verse 19) that if the resurrection of the body be denied it is difficult to maintain the immortality of the soul, because without the body the soul is in an unnatural, and therefore unenduring state.

1 Cor 15:31. I die daily, I protest by your glory, brethren, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I die daily, i.e., every day St. Paul, like the other Apostles, was in danger of death for his faith and his preaching (Rom 8:36).

I protest, etc. The Apostle solemnly affirms by the pride he feels in the Corinthian Church, which he founded in Christ Jesus, that he is truly exposed to death every day of his life. Why all this, if there is no future life and no resurrection?

1 Cor 15:32. If (according to man) I fought with beasts at Ephesus, what doth it profit me, if the dead rise not again? Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die.
If (according to man), etc. There should be no parentheses here. The meaning is: If for merely human motives, without a hope of future life and a consequent glorious resurrection, St. Paul on account of his preaching was exposed to wild beasts at Ephesus, what profit, what advantage was there in his action? He was exposing himself to death for no purpose, if the dead rise not again.

I fought with beasts, etc. The word εθηριομαχησα (thēriomacheō)  used here by St. Paul, with its derivatives, became a technical expression for men contending with wild beasts in the amphitheatre. A metaphorical sense, however, is given it in the present instance by nearly all modern interpreters; and this for the following reasons: (a) St. Paul’s actual fighting with wild beasts is not mentioned by St. Luke, who speaks at considerable length of the Apostle’s sojourn at Ephesus (Acts 19:1; 20:1); (b) nor does St. Paul speak of such an experience when enumerating the various kinds of perils and sufferings to which he had been exposed for the sake of the Gospel (2 Cor 11:23); (c) it would be difficult to account for such treatment of a Roman citizen (Acts 22:26). The expression, therefore, must refer to the bitter opposition sustained by the Apostle from the Jews and his other enemies during his two years at Ephesus (Acts 19:1 ff.; 20:19; 2 Tim 4:17). St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing to the Romans (Ad Rom. 5), employs the very same word in a metaphorical sense: “All the way from Syria to Rome I have to fight with beasts, bound as I am to ten leopards, that is, a file of soldiers.”

What doth it profit me. In Greek the interrogation point is after this clause, and not after the one that follows, as in our version and in the Vulgate. The quotation is from Isaiah 22:13, where the Jews are represented as scoffing at God’s threats to destroy them. The Apostle, by alluding to these words from the Prophet, is only expressing the conclusion which would commonly be drawn from a denial of the resurrection; “for himself it was recompense enough that his action was pleasing to God” (St. Chrys.).

Again should be away (i.e., omitted), and we shall die (Vulg., moriemur) should be in the present tense.

Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. A quote from Isaiah 22:13.

1 Cor 15:33. Be not seduced: Evil communications corrupt good manners.

Be not seduced, i.e., by those who say there is no resurrection.

Evil communications, etc. This is a line from the play Thais of the Athenian comedian Menander (320 B.C.), which in the time of St. Paul had doubtless become a proverbial expression. The meaning here is that false doctrines, such as the denial of the resurrection, corrupt one’s morals and manner of life.

1 Cor 15:34. Awake, ye just, and sin not. For some have not the knowledge of God, I speak it to your shame.

The Apostle now exhorts those Christians who had permitted themselves to be seduced to return to their previous state of justice and right living.

Awake. The meaning of the Greek imperative, εκνηψατε, is that they should awake from their sleep of intoxication and come to themselves again. εκνηψατε is used only here in the New Testament. The word is certainly meant to contrast with verse 32~Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. The related word, ανανηψωσιν (“recover”), is used in 2 Tim 2:26~And they may recover themselves from the snares of the devil by whom they are held captive at his will. Compare with Joel 1:5.

Ye just. Literally, “Righteously” (δικαιως). The meaning is: Awake, (a) as you ought; or (b) to what is right and just; or (c) so as to become just. St. Paul is bidding those seduced Corinthians to rouse themselves from their erroneous notions to a state of justice and righteousness.

For some, etc., i.e., those who say there is no resurrection of the dead are like the Pharisees whom our Lord rebuked for their ignorance of divine things (Matt 22:29), they have not the knowledge of God.

In the Vulgate justi would better be juste or ad justitiam.

Posted in 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, Catholic, St Paul | Leave a Comment »

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:20b-28

Posted by carmelcutthroat on December 20, 2018

Christ’s resurrection includes the resurrection of all men

The Resurrection of Christ is connected with that of others as the first-fruits are connected with those that follow, which they precede in order of time and dignity (St. Thomas). As the spiritual death of Adam involved the physical and spiritual death of all his descendants, so the corporal Resurrection of our Lord involves the corporal resurrection of all the just. After He shall have conquered all the enemies of God and man, Christ, the representative man, will assume for Himself and for all the faithful the position which befits Him as man, that God may be all in all.

1 Cor 15:20b.  …the first-fruits of them that sleep:

The first-fruits, etc. Christ was the first man to rise from the dead, but He is only the “first-fruits,” which shows there will be other fruits of the same kind. He is the model and pattern according to which all the just will rise. As the first-fruits of the harvest suppose the harvest, so the Resurrection of Jesus implies the harvest of the general resurrection of all the saved. The earth is the vast field in which our bodies like seed are planted, and since the first-fruits have already appeared, we can hope that soon the harvest will come.

Others, like Lazarus, who were called back to life before the Resurrection of Christ, were not raised to immortal life. Even those whom St. Matthew (Matt 27:52 ff.) speaks of as having come forth from their graves at the time of the crucifixion did not rise till after Christ had risen, and it is not certain that they did not die again.

1 Cor 15:21. For by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead.
1 Cor 15:22. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.

These verses show how Christ is the first-fruits of the dead. There exists the same relation between our Lord’s Resurrection and that of the just, as between the death of Adam and that of his descendants. As Adam was the father of fallen humanity, so Christ is the Father of regenerated humanity. By one man human nature was corrupted and despoiled of its gift of immortality, and so it was becoming that by one other man human nature should be restored, in the resurrection of the body, to its primitive state and dignity. Therefore, as all those who are born of Adam are condemned to death, so all they who are reborn in Christ shall be regenerated unto immortal life for body as well as soul.

So also in Christ, etc. Most modern interpreters, like Cornely, Le Camus, Bisping, etc., understand these words to refer only to the just, because there is question, they say, only of a glorious and immortal resurrection like that of Christ’s. Others, however, hold with St. Thomas that the Apostle is speaking of the resurrection of all,—of the good to a life of glory, of the bad to an existence of misery and shame (John 5:28 ff.; Dan 12:2).

Came of verse 21 is not represented in the Greek, although it is to be understood.

1 Cor 15:23. But every one in his own order: the first-fruits Christ, then they that are of Christ, who have believed in his coming.

All shall rise again, but each in his own order of time and according to his dignity. Christ has risen first, preceding all others in time and dignity, and becoming the model of the resurrection of all the saved. Then they that are of Christ, i.e., the just, shall rise at His second coming (1 Thess 4:15).

Who have believed (Vulg., qui crediderunt) should be omitted, as wanting in all the best MSS. and in the early editions of the Vulg.

1 Cor 15:24. Afterwards the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father, when he shall have brought to nought all principality, and power, and virtue.

Afterwards the end, i.e., after the resurrection shall come the end of the present world, the present order of things (Matt 24:14; Mark 13:7; Luke 21:9), which shall be replaced by “a new heaven and a new earth” (Rev 21:1).

When he, i.e., when Christ, the Redeemer, shall have delivered up, better, “shall hand over” (παραδιδω, pres. subj., according to the best MSS., instead of παραδω, the aorist subj.), the kingdom, i.e., the Messianic Kingdom of the Church Militant, to God the Father, who as Creator is Lord of all creatures. Although as God Christ is also Creator and equal to the Father, as man He is in a particular way the Lord of the Messianic Kingdom, the Church, which He has purchased with His blood. It is the militant part of this Messianic Kingdom which Christ as man is here said to hand over to His Father at the end of the world, as a conqueror hands over to his sovereign the fruits of the victory he has won. Obviously Christ as God will not cease to reign equally with the Father and the Holy Ghost after the victory is won. But He will not surrender to His Father the Church Militant, until it is in peace, that is, until He has vanquished and brought to nothing all the enemies of God, demons and evil men, who have opposed and persecuted His Church.
The present subjunctive, the better reading, emphasize Christ’s action

Principality . . . power . . . virtue, i.e., all rule, authority and power that is opposed to God and Christ’s Kingdom, the Church.

1 Cor 15:25. For he must reign, until he hath put all his enemies under his feet.

For he must reign, etc., i.e., according to the decrees of God, Christ must govern and guide His Church, combat His enemies, and help the faithful, until He has triumphed over all the adversaries of His Kingdom, as was foretold in Psalm 110:1. In the Psalm it is God the Father who is represented as saying to Christ: “Sit at my right hand, until,” etc., but the Apostle is here plainly alluding to this Psalm and applying it to Christ, whose rule over the Church Militant will cease when the struggle finally gives way to victory. Of Christ’s eternal reign with the Father and the Holy Ghost in the Church Triumphant (Luke 1:32, 33; Dan 7:1414) there is no question here.

1 Cor 15:26. And the enemy death shall be destroyed last: For he hath put all things under his feet. And whereas he saith,
1 Cor 15:27. All things are put under him ; undoubtedly, he is excepted, who put all things under him.

Now St. Paul alludes to Psalm 8:8 to show that in the resurrection death will be the last enemy to be destroyed. Literally the Psalm refers to man in the state of innocence, who was lord over visible creation; but in a mystical sense it points to the perfect man, Jesus Christ, the head of the human race.

Death is called the last enemy because, by retaining the bodies of mankind in the dust of the earth, it does an injury to the elect and keeps back their complete happiness after all other enemies have been rendered powerless. Christ, by His Resurrection, has thus conquered death in His own case, but the victory over this dread enemy will not be complete until the bodies of all the dead shall have been reclaimed in the general resurrection.

The resurrection of all the dead, good and bad, is argued from this verse, because if the triumph over death is to be complete, the bodies of all the dead must rise again.

And whereas he saith. These words should be connected with verse 27, as in the Greek. A better translation would be: “When he shall have said” (οταν δε ειπη) , i.e., when God the Father shall say at the end of the world that all things have been subjected to the Son, we must not understand the Father Himself to be included among the things subjected. Some interpreters supply αὐτός (autos = Him) from the last sentence, and understand Christ to be announcing the subjugation of all things to Him to whom it is owing (Lias).

1 Cor 15:28. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then the Son also himself shall be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

And when all things, etc., i.e., when all the enemies of the Church Militant shall have been conquered by Christ and the general resurrection takes place, then the Son, etc., i.e., then Christ also, as man, shall subject Himself, together with His redeemed Kingdom, the multitude of the elect, to His Father, without, however, forfeiting His own Kingship over His adoring subjects.

As man Christ has always, from the first moment of the Incarnation, been subject to and less than the Father, His humanity has been less than His Divinity, and less than the Holy Ghost; but in the resurrection when, together with the elect, His victorious army, He gives Himself over to the Father, His subjection will be greater in its extension and fulness (cf. Rickaby.).

That God may be all in all. The purpose of this final and universal subjection of Christ and His elect to the Father is that in the Church Triumphant God the Father may be recognized and glorified as the Lord of all, and as the author and primal source of all the blessings conferred upon Christ Himself, and through Christ upon the Church and the body of the elect; and that thus He may be all in all, i.e., may reign perfectly over all, rendering all perfectly and consummately happy.

Posted in 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, Catholic, St Paul | Leave a Comment »

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:12-20a

Posted by carmelcutthroat on December 20, 2018

THE NECESSITY OF BELIEVING IN THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST
A Summary of
1 Corinthians 15:12-20a

Before coming to the main theme of the present chapter, which is the resurrection of the just, and of all the dead, St. Paul wishes still further to strengthen and enlighten the belief of the Corinthians in Christ’s glorious Resurrection, for it is upon this latter that he will base his great argument for the truth of the former. Therefore, after having cited in the preceding section what he considers to be the best witnesses for our Saviour’s corporal Resurrection, he proceeds now to show the dire consequences that would necessarily follow if Christ were not truly risen. In such an event both the preaching of the Apostles and the faith of Christians would be without foundation. Wherefore, he concludes, we must accept the Resurrection of Christ.

1 Cor 15:12. Now if Christ be preached, that he arose again from the dead, how do some among you say, that there is no resurrection of the dead?
1 Cor 15:13. But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen again.

These verses show that some among the Corinthians denied the resurrection of the dead, but they imply that those same sceptics believed that Christ was truly risen; otherwise St. Paul’s argument here would avail nothing against those who thought corporal resurrection was absurd and impossible (against MacR.). If they admitted, as seems evident, that Christ was risen, then it is possible for others to rise; and since the faithful form one mystical body of which Christ is the head (1 Cor 6:15; 12:27), their resurrection must naturally follow upon His. It is unseemly that the head should live without the body. Moreover, Christians, by reason of their union and fellowship with Christ, have become the adopted children of God, having a right to share in Christ’s inheritance and in the glory and honor, of body as well as soul, which is His. Thus the admitted Resurrection of Christ makes necessary the further admission that His members will also rise.

If it be objected that this argument proves only the resurrection of the just, of Christians who are united with Christ, we may reply with St. Chrysostom and St. Thomas that St. Paul was writing to, and arguing against those among the faithful of Corinth who denied the resurrection, but who did not consider that they thereby ceased to be Christians, united to Christ.

1 Cor 15:14. And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
1 Cor 15:15. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God: because we have given testimony against God, that he hath raised up Christ; whom he hath not raised up if the dead rise not again.

Terrible consequences would follow, if Christ were not risen again, (a) Both the preaching of the Apostles and the faith of their converts would be vain, i.e., without foundation, because Christ pointed to His Resurrection as the supreme proof of His Divinity and Messiahship (Matt 12:38 ff.; John 2:18 ff.); and if He be not truly risen, then we must conclude that He was a false prophet and has deceived both preachers and believers, and that there is no reason for either the Gospel or faith. The Apostles always proved the divine origin and authority of their preaching by appealing to the Resurrection of Jesus, holding that God would not have raised Him from the dead had He not been all He claimed to be, and had His doctrine not been true (Acts 1:22; 2:24, 32; 3:15, 21; 4:10, 33; 5:30; 10:37; 17:31 ; Rom 1:4; 4:24, etc.).

(b) The Apostles would be false witnesses of God, because they have attributed to Him something He never did, namely, the raising of Christ from the grave. And if it is an evil thing falsely to attribute something of grave moment to another human being, what a serious offence it would be to bear similar false witness to God!

Again, both in verse 14 and in verse 15 should be omitted, as not represented in the Greek.

1 Cor 15:16. For if the dead rise not again, neither is Christ risen again.

For if the dead, etc., a solemn repetition of the conclusion stated above, in verse 13, from which still further evils would result.

Again in this and in the following verse should also be taken out.

1 Cor 15:17. And if Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain, for you are yet in your sins.
1 Cor 15:18. Then they also that are fallen asleep in Christ, are perished.

Your faith is vain, i.e., useless to you, for you could not be redeemed and freed from your sins by an impostor who claimed to be the true Messiah and Saviour of the world.

Then they also, etc. In the event that Christ is not truly risen, then those that died believing in Him and hoping for the remission of their sins through His redeeming merits, have died with their sins still upon them and are lost forever.

1 Cor 15:19. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

If Christ is not risen from the dead, faith in Him is not only useless for the living and the dead, but it is also a great detriment to Christians. If all our faith in Christ does for us is to give us in the present life a groundless hope of something false, causing us to deny ourselves many things which unbelievers enjoy, and bringing upon us numberless persecutions, then indeed we are of all men more to be pitied (ελεεινοτεροι = elleinoteroi, translated above as “most miserable”) than others.

1 Cor 15:20a. But now Christ is risen from the dead.

But all these terrible consequences that have just been described are false, because Christ is truly risen from the dead, and neither our preaching nor your faith is vain.

Posted in 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, Catholic, St Paul | Leave a Comment »