222 I. CORINTHIANS 11, 23.

which we have heard of him (dir auToD)," 1 John 1, 5, which certainly does not refer to an indirect communication re- ceived througli others. In this place a-n-o tov Kvptov, from the Lord^ is evidently opposed to om avSpwiroiv, from men. He received his knowledge from the Lord, and not from men. Comp. Gal. 1, 12. So in Gal. 1, 1, he says he was an apostle not by men (ovk air di/^pcoTrwv), but by Jesus Christ (8ta l-qaov Xpta-Tov). Must it be inferred from this latter expression that Christ was only the medium of Paul's call to the apostleship, because 8id expresses the instrumental cause ? This would be as reasonable as to infer from the use of diro in the text, that the knowledge of Paul was derived indirectly from the Lord. The apostle however says in Gal. 1, 1, that he received his apostleship, not only through Jesus Christy but also through God the Father ; must this also mean through the instrumen- tality of God ? is God the Father a mere instrument ? No writer uses language with such strict grammatical accu- racy as this objection supposes ; much less did Jews writing Greek. It is of course important to adhere as far as possible to the exact meaning of the words ; but to sacrifice the sense and obvious intent of the writer to such niceties is unreasonar ble. The use of ctTrd, in this case, probably arose from the de- sire to avoid the triple repetition of irapd ; irapiXa^ovy -n-apd, irapihoiKa. 2. It is objected that, as the Lord's supper had been celebrated without interruption from the time of its in- stitution, the facts concerning it must have been universally known, and therefore needed no direct revelation. The same objection might be made to a special revelation of the gospel to Paul. Why might he not have been allowed to learn it from the other apostles ? Besides, Paul, as he shows in the first and second chapters of his epistle to the Galatians, had no communication with the other apostles for three years after his conversion. 3. It is objected that ideas and truths may be communicated by visions and inward influences, but not historical facts. Then a large part of the prophecies of the Old Testament must be fabulous. The evidence is so strong from the context, that Paul claims independent authority for what he here says, that many who bow to the force of the Greek preposition, say that the account received by Paul from Christ through others, was authenticated to him by an inward revelation. But this is not what he says. He says he re- ceived it from Christ, which, in the connection, can only mean that he received it directly from Christ; for his object is to