Christ and Lord. To the apostles this faith had so wondrously purified their hearts and enlightened their minds that they could hardly conceive of a faith that omitted some of tlie great essential truths. An example of this pliase may be found in the Corinthian church, where many failed to believe in the resurrection of the dead and were not slow to express openly their unbelief. They accepted the common faith in the personal resur- rection of Jesus Christ, but they seemed to have assumed that this was a unique occurrence, and to have rejected the general truth of the recovery and resurrection of the body as sharing in the Christian salvation. St. Paul in his reply asserted that such unbelief was destructive of the faith of the Church, and affirmed in some of the most brilliant passages of all his writings that the re- surrection of Christians was part of the Christian redemption, gave inspiration to the Christian life, and crowned with glory the Christian experience (1 Co 15).
Two practical questions affecting the relation of Christians to unbelievers in the Ajjostolic Age are worthy of notice. The higher and nobler concep- tions of marriage that arose through Christian teaching suggested to many the question whether relations contracted under pre-Christian conditions should be continued, especially where one spouse refused to accept the Christian faith and became an unbeliever. St. Paul dealt with this question in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, where he affirmed that the unbelieving spouse was sanctified by the believing member, that the Christian spouse was not to seek divorce from the non-Christian ; but, if the latter insisted on separation, then it was to be acquiesced in. But such separation was un- desirable, for peace was better for a Christian than disunion, and there was always the possibility that the unbelieving spouse might be won to the faith by the believer (1 Co V'"-'" ; cf. 1 P 3'). On the other hand, marriage of a believer after con- version with an unbeliever was deemed an un- christian act (2 Co 6'^). The other practical question was with regard to the practice of Chris- tians carrying their quarrels before unbelievers. The Corinthians were litigious as well as licentious, and even after they adhered to the Christian faith they were beset by their old weaknesses. They were guilty of quarrelling, and insisted so much on their presumed rights that they did not hesitate to go to law with a Christian brother before pagan judges. St. Paul denounced this practice as show- ing the lack of Ciiristian love, as bringing disgrace upon the whole Christian community, and as im- plying that there were none within the Christian fellowship able to settle the petty differences that had arisen. Even the Jews exercised jurisdiction over internal affairs, and reckoned as guilty of im- piety any of their number who brought a matter of law before idolatrous judges ; much more should Christians shun heathen courts, and seek rather the judgment of their fellow-Christians, especially when they remembered that to believers was given by God the judgment of the world, and even of the angels in heaven (1 Co 6'"^).
D. Macrae Tod.
DNCIRCUMCISION See Circumcision.
UNCLEAN.-See Clean.
UNCOKRUPTNESS (d0«ap<rla).— The Eng. word is used in the AV only in 1 Co 15«- ™- »'• '••, but the Gr. word occurs also in Ro 2', Eph 6-^ 2 Ti l'». The RV renders 'incorrnption' not only in each of the four verses in 1 Co 15, but in Ro 2' and 2 Ti V, where the AV has ' immortality.' In Eph 6-' the AV gives ' sincerity ' and the RV ' uncorruptness.' In Tit 2' ' uncorruptness ' ( AV and RV) represents
UNCTION
UNlUN WITH GUD
629
dipffopla. (or aSia^dopla). The noun a(p6ap<rla is de- rived from tlie iidj. d.<t>Oaproi {a priv. ;iiid (pOclpa, 'to corrupt), wliieli is found in Ro \^, 1 Co 9"' 15", 1 Ti 1", 1 P V- ■-» 3*, imd in the l:V is iihviiys rendered 'incorruptible.' The ItV is correct in this consistent use of 'incorruptible' for &(pdapToi, and more correct than tlie AV in using ' incorrup- tion ' for itpBapirla in those cases where the latter has ' iniMiortalitv,' wliich properly represents dOo- vaala (1 Co 1,V^- •", 1 Ti G"'). But corresponding; to 'incorruptible' for dipOapTO!, 'incorruptibility' would have been still better than ' incorruption ' for aipOapaia (Tertullian [de Cultu fciiiinaniiii, ii. 6] and subsequent writers render incurruplihilitct!! • Vulg. in most cases incnrruptio, which pn)bal)ly suggested ' incorruption ' «f the I''.V), sinc<^ the word reallj- denotes the quality of ini|)erishable- ness. The fact that 'incorruption' is the AV rendering in 1 Co 15, so familiar to English ears from its place in the order for the liurial of the dead in the Book of Common Prayer, may have determined the Revisers to use it in that cha|)ter, and the i)rinciiile of adopting as far as possil)le a uniform reiulering of particular words (see Revisers' Preface) would lead them to ailhereto it elsewhere. In Ejdi 6-^ thej' have departed from their usage in other places by sub.stituting ' uncorruptncss' (AV '.sincerity'), but it is questionable whether bj' doing so they have brought out the writer's real meaning. It seems quite likely that he was em- ploying the word in its usual sense, and was think- ing not of the purity of the Christian's love for Christ, its freedom from corrupt elements, but of its incorruptil>ilitj', i.e. its imperi.shableness. In Ti 2', where dcjidopia is applied to the doctrine which Titus was to teach, that word is properly translated 'uncorruptncss.'