ματικοῖς 1 " πνευματικὰ συγκρίνοντες.
οὐ "δέχεται τὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ Θεοῦ: *pwpia γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐστι,
1. 3, V. 19, vi. 12; Col. i. 9) iii. 16; x Pet. ii. 5.
Jas. iii. 15; Jude το; four times in Lk. and Acts in this sense. Th :
and 2 z See i. 18.
783
¥ ix..1%) X..4 f., xiv.1 Ἡ,, Rom.i. 11, vii. 14, xv. 27; Eph.
w 2 Cor. x. 12; see note below. X XV. 44, 46;
y Thrice in 2 Cor., and in 1
14. " ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος
Ἰπνευµατικως: B,17; so W.H. mg. A good binary group.
The mode of utterance agrees with the character of the revealing Spirit: οὐκ ἐν διδακτοῖς ἀνθρωπίνης σοφίας λόγοις, GAN ἐν διδακτοῖς κ.τ.λ. (which things we speak out), not in human- wisdom-taught words, but in (words) Spirit-taught’’—verba rem sequuntuy (Wetstein). The opposed gens. depend on διδακτοῖς, denoting agent with vbl. adj.—a construction somewhat rare, but cl. (so in John vi. 45, Isa. liv. 13 ; diff. in 1 Macc. iv. 7, διδακτοὶ πολέμου); they are anarthrous, signifying opposite kinds of νδάοπη. ---διδακτὸς in earlier Gr, meant what can or ought to be taught; later, what is taught (cf. γνωστός, Rom. i. Ig). Paul affirms that his words in matters of revelation, as well as thoughts, were taught him by the Spirit; he claims, in some sense, verbal inspira- tion. In an honest mind thought and language are one, and whatever deter- mines the former must mould the latter. Cor. critics complained both of the im- perfection of Paul’s dialect (2 Cor. x. 10: see 1 above) and of the poverty of his ideas; here is his rejoinder. We arrive thus at the explanation of the obscure clause, πνευματικοῖς WvevpaTiKa συν- Kpivovtes@—combining spiritual things with spiritual, wedding kindred speech to thought (for the ptp. qualifies λαλοῦ- pev): 5ο Er., Ον., Bz., D.W., Mr., Ππ., Lt., El., Bt.; “with spiritual phrase matching spiritual truth”? (Ev.). Ver. 13 asserts the correspondence of Apos- tolic utterance and thought; in ver. 14 P. passes to the correspondence of men and things. Other meanings are found for συνκρίνω, and πνευματικοῖς may be masc. as well as neut.; thus the _follow- ing variant renderings are deduced: (1 νόμο sp. things with sp. (V 6., EW Ed.)—forming them into a correlated system ; (2) interpreting, or proving, sp. things by sp.—sc. O.T. types by N.T. fulfilments (Cm. and Ff.); (3) adapting, or appropriating, sp. things to sp. men (Est., Olshausen, Gd.), with some strain upon the vb.; (4) interpreting sp. things to sp. men (Bg., Rickert, Hf., Staniey, Al., Sm.). The last explanation is ~plausible, in view of the sequel; but it
misses the real point of ver. 13, and is not clearly supported by the usage of συνκρίνω, which ‘means properly to combine, as διακρίνω to separate’’ (Lt.). Ver.14. Withthe App. all is spiritual —words and thoughts; for this very reason men of the world reject their teaching: ‘* But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God” (cf. Rom. viii. 5; John xv. 18-21, 1 John iv. 5).—Of the vbs. for receiving, λαμβάνω (12) regards the object, δέχοµαι the manner and spirit of the act—to welcome (see parls.); there is no receptivity— “non vult admittere” (Βρ.). Ψυχικός, ~ in all N.T. instances, has a disparaging sense, being opposed to πνευματικός (as ux7 is not to πνεῦμα), and almost syn. with σάρκινος or σαρκικός (iii. 1 f.). The term is in effect privative—6 µόνην τ. ἔμφντον καὶ ἀνθρωπίνην σύνεσιν ἔχων (Cm.), “‘quemlibet hominem solis nature facultatibus preditum’’ (Cv.),—positive evil being implied by consequence. Adam’s body was ψυχικόν, as not yet charged, like that of Christ, with the Divine πνεῦμα (xv. 44-49. syn. with χοϊκός, and contrasted with ἐπουράνιος). ‘“The word was coined by Aristotle (Eth. Nic., Π1., x., 2) to distinguish the pleasures of the soul, such as ambition and desire for knowledge, from those of the body (ἡδοναὶ cwpatikai).” “' Simi- larly Polybius, and Plutarch (de Plac. Phil., i., 9: ψνχικαὶ χαραί, copatixal ἡδοναί). ‘Contrasted with the ἀκρατής, the ψυχικὸς is the noblest of men. Bu to the πνευματικὸς he is related as th natural to the supernatural” (Ed.: see Cr., 5. v.). This epithet, therefore, de- scribes to the Cor. the unregenerate nature at its best, the man commended in philosophy, actuated by the higher thoughts and aims of the natural life— not the sensual man (the animalis of the Vg.), who is ruled by bodily impulse, Yet the ψνχικός, py ἔχων πνεῦμα (Jude 19), may be lower than the σαρκικός, where the latter, as in iii. 3 and Gal. ν. 17, 25, is already touched but not fully assimilated by the life-giving Nvedpa.— µωρία γὰρ αὐτῷ κ.τ.λ., rendered by