The meaning of this is uncertain, but it is probable (cf. art. bv J. H. A. Hart on 'Apollos' in JThSt vii. [1905] 1611.) that it means that he was fully acquainted with Messianic prophecy, but did not know to whom it referred, ' the things concerning Jesus ' being texts from the OT which from the Christian point of view referred to Jesus, though not, of course, from the point of view of Apollos himself at this time. Tliis interpretation gives a more intelligible sense to the passage than that which is at first sight more natural, viz. that TOL irepl 'iTjffov means the history of Jesus' life. It would imply that he jireached the same message as John the Baptist — a message of the imminence of the Kingdom, the marks of the Messiah, and the need for repentance. His instruction at the hands of Priscilla and Aquila taught him to whom the Messianic passages with which he was familiar referred. And at Corinth his knowledge of Scripture was turned to good account in showing that the Messiah had come and was none other than Jesus. Tiie view that the intellectualist tendencies condemned in the early chapters of 1 Cor. were particularly' characteristic of the party of Apollos is not susceptible of proof, but it is not inconsistent with what we know of Apollos. For Alexandria was the home of philosophy, and Apollos was an Alexandrian Jew. We do not, however, know that he was a disciple of Philo, and we do know that he was a disciple of John the Baptist. These discipleships might be combined in the same person, but it does not seem altogether probable. The fact is that there is no evidence, and we must be content to leave the matter doubtful.
The party of Cephas was in all probability a Judaizing party. To say this does not involve the view that St. Peter was himself a Judaizer. But it is extremely likely that those who used his name were so. Lake {The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, pp. 112-117) maintains that it is probable that St. Peter had himself been to Corinth, and that there is no likelihood of his party having been Judaizing. But this is perhaps the least convincing part of his admirable discussion of the Epistles to the Corin- thians. The policy of St. Peter was one of friendli- ness to the work and mission of St. Paul, combined with a personal respect for and adhesion to the Law. The Acts certainly represents St. Peter as ac- quiescing in the freedom of the Gentiles from the Law% but does not forbid the supposition that he acquiesced Mith some reluctance. A modified and liljeral Judaism Avould describe his position with sufficient accuracy. This may well represent the policy of his party at Corinth. Probably also they went behind the authority of St. Paul to that of the Twelve, of whom St. Peter was the recognized leader. It is most likely that the main point in
dispute between them and the Pauline party was this question of St. Paul's independent authority. But we have no indication that they were an im- portant body at Corinth.
The Christ-party is the real difficult}'. Some have held that eyi^ de Xpicxrov is not the watch- word of a party, but St. Paul's own ciy. But the form of the sentence makes this most im- probable. Moreover, there are indications in 2 Cor. of the existence of a Christ-party at Corinth (10'). This party apparently questioned St. Paul's authority'. Their leaders commend themselves (10'-), i.e. arrogate a lofty position to themselves. They are probably referred to (IP) as oi inrepXiav dir6crTo\oi. It appears that they declined to take money from the Corinthians.* But he says that they are false apostles, deceitful workers. In justifying his own position against them he says that he too is a Hebrew, etc. (IP^). He certainly excels them in the amount of his sufi'erings for Christ. In the matter of visions and revelations he is at least their equal. Therefore he is in no respect inferior to them (12").
Broadly speaking, there are two views as to the character of this Christ-f>arty. The first is that they were Judaizers, representatives of the party who sent emissaries to Antioch and preached the necessity of circumcision for all Christians (Ac 15'^' ). but were afterwards repudiated by St. James. It is clear from 2 Co IP- that they were Jews who prided themselves on their Jewish birth. But there is no kind of evidence that anyone had told the Corinthians to observe the whole Jewish Law. This is not one of the subjects with which St. Paul has to deal in his E]nstles. The danger seems to be the other way. Therefore it is on the whole unlikelj' that this party were, as has been sup- posed, more extreme Judaizers than the Cephas jiarty, representing themselves as being in an authoritative position to say Avhat the mind of Christ really was, and what His own practice had been, because of their common descent with Him from an old Jewish stock and because they were in continual communication with His relatives.
A more probable view is that they were spiritual- izers rather than Judaizers, and that they went further than St. Paul in the direction of freedom from the Law. The arguments about eiowXbdvra in 1 Co 10 seem to be directed against men who made a boast of their freedom from Jewish restric- tions— iravTa i^eariv seems to have been their cr\'. St. Paul shows the danger of this, and the neces- sary subservience of any such principle to the law of charity, and consideration for weaker brethren. The whole of 2 Cor. becomes more intelligible if we suppose the opposition to St. Paul to have come from a party of people who regarded themselves as wvevfiaTiKoi, and therefore free from restrictions and regulations concerning carnal matters. 2 Co 10^ implies that their charge against St. Paul was that he walked according to the flesh, i.e. that he was not TTvevfiaTLKos. The grounds of their attack on his apostolicity were, it seems, such as would most probably be employed by those who regarded themselves as TrfevjuariKoL. For he defends himself not onlj' by asserting his Jewish birth, but, after giving a list of his sufferings for Christ's sake (which is the defence to which he himself attaches most importance), by making claims to visions and revelations (12^'"), and the working of miracles (12^-). Throughout the Epistle St. Paul claims to be irvev/xaTiKos in the only legitimate sense, quite as much as his opponents (cf. 5^^). The fact that