1. etrirroXai (Co, Eph).
2. a-Cftf^Tai (Co, Eph, -b'cB Ro). (•iayyiAjff-T*/ (Eph)
reifAtint (Eph)
Sis.««.;« (Ro)i.
I. iiidriutU, (Co, Eph, -mt Ro) [wctfixxa^iu^ (Ho)
iuvaiuiii, .a^lAATa (Kph)] «fTtX*;-4'('f (Co) [uiTahiicu( (Ro)] Kvfiiptv.irtts (Co) [ir^trrdftAtot (Bo)] [iJj;i. (Ro)) _
ylMJ y>Jrfffiir (Co).
These lists are evidently not to be regarded as statistical, and their variations are clearly due to the unstudied spontaneity with which each enumeration is made. All the more significant, then, is it that ' prophets ' everywhere take rank next after the apostles, while ' teachers,' who stand high in all these lists, are the only other class common to all. In our Epistle these three classes alone are expressly as.signed an order, 'first,' 'second,' 'third.' To interpret these facts would take us beyond our limits, but it is worth noting that the prophetic gift is not strictly limited to a class, but potentially belongs to all (I430-3J) That administrative gifts ((cu/SEpviio-f't) come 80 low, perhaps implies that they are still voluntary (cf. tne rpoicTi/xevot of Ro). 1 o organize the \oyla (16'") the presence of Titus was required (2 Co 8"). The ivoiKoSo/xoOyTti or TnuSaywyol of 3'" 4'», who, like Apollos (3«), carried on the work
begun by St. Paul at Corinth, were therefore prob- ably ' prophets and teachers' ; but the Ep. makes little reference to them (perhaps 16'", cf. 1 fh 5'^'-). Public worship is the subject of a long section ol the Epistle (see analysis, § 9). At some ^/ckXtjitIoi, ISidrai (possibly unbaptized persons) might be present (H'"-^) ; this would not be at the KvpiaKbn SuTvov. The ' Amen ' is in use as the response to prayer or praise (14"). The discussion 11-*- would suggest that women might, under certain con- ditions, pray or prophesy in public ; but 14" shows that the apostle was merely holding in reserve a total prohibition, at any rate as regards speaking iv iKKX-ijcrif. Otherwise, the liberty of propliesyina belonged to all ; the utterances were to be tested (14'-*), but the test was simply the character of the utterance (12'"-). Prayer or praise iy 7X010-^7; (see Tongues) was a marked feature of public worship, but St. Paul insists on its inferiority to prophecy. Sunday is mentioned as a day for settin" apart alms (16°), and was therefore probably a day for common worship ; but this is not expressly stated. To come together for common worship constituted an {KKKriaia (11"). It is possible that assemblies for prophecy and teaching (14-*) were distinct from those held els rb ipayely (11^). This was the case apparently in Pliny's time (see Weizsacker, Apost. Zeitalter, p. 568 f.). The purpose of the latter assembly was to break the bread and bless the cup of the Lord. In ll"-*" we have the lonu classicus for the Eucharist of the apostolic age. Two views may be referred to which appear to be erroneous. One, represented, for example, by Beet in his commentary on the passage, is founded on the abuse censured in v.*' (cf.**), that ' each one taketh before other his own supper,' thereby destroying the character of the meal as a ' I.ord s Supper.' If, it is argued, previous consecration of the bread and wine by the wpoeaTw, and reception at his hands, had been an essential of the Eucharist then, as we find it to be in the age of Justin (Apol. i. § 65), the abuse in question could not have occurred ; and St. Paul's remedy would have been ' wait foi the consecration,' not ' wait for each other ' (v.*^). This argument a.ssumes, firstly, a departure from the procedure of Christ in institut- ing the sacrament, which is quite incredible. That in carrying out His command, toCto iroieirf, the apostolic Churches omitted precisely the actions which accompanied His words, and that the pre- sence of those actions in Justin's Eucharist is due to a reversion, not to continuous repetition, is im- probable to the last degree. The argument is really due to a second erroneous assumption that ' the Lord's Supper' in v.^ 'can be no other tl.an the bread and the cup of the Lord in v.".' This assumption is a reaction from the anachronism of introducin'' the Agape of later times* to explain the passage. The ' Lord's Supper ' is not the Eucharist proper, still less the Agape, but the entire re- enactment of the Last Supper, with the euchar- istic acts occurring in the course of it, as tliev do in the paschal meal of the sj'noptic (iospels. "The name 'Lord's Supiier' is not elsewhere used in the NT, but in the Church the ' Lord's Supper ' was neither the earliest nor the commonest name for the Eucharist ; it primarily, though not exclas- ively, meant the annual re-enactment of the Last Supper, which survived after the Agape had first been separated from the Eucharist, and then li.ad gradually dropped out of use (see Smith's Diet. Christ. Antiq. s.v. 'Lord's Supper'). In any case, then, the ' Lord's Supper ' at Corinth would be already in progress when the bread and cup were blessed; St. Paul's censure and remedy (w.^-")
* The name Agape is occasionally used for the Eucharist ItAelf, but more properly for the meal from which the Eucharist has been entirely separated (Z>tc(, Christ. Ant. «.u. ' Apat)e').
L GORINTHIAXS
IL CORINTHIANS
491
plete lUtof works on the Kpp. to the Cor. will be found in tary (Kng. tr.), also in Plummer's articles on nith DB'i, see also Wald. Schmidt in PREi xL