σαρκικοις, DcGLP; late Western and
(El.).—vots serves his turn better than the literal πνεῦμα of the original (ruach) ; the intellectual side of the πνεῦμα is con- cerned, the θεῖον ὄμμα (see note on νοῦς, i. 10). For the emphatic pets, cf. νν. το, 12, and notes; for the anarthrous nouns, note ΟΠ ver. 4; νοῦν X. is quasi- predicative—‘ it is Christ’s mind—no other—that we have ’’.—€yopev is not to be softened into perspectam habemus, novimus (Gr.): Christ lives and thinks in the πνευματικός (vi. 17, 2 Cor. xiii. 3 Π., etc. ; John xv. 1-8); the unio mystica is the heart of Paul’s experience.
CuapTer III.—Ver. 1. Kayo, ἄδελ- got: The Ap. returns to the strain of ii. I-5, speaking now not in general terms of ἡμεῖς, οἱ τέλειοι, etc. ; but definitely of the Cor. and himself. They demonstrate, unhappily, the incapacity of the un- spiritual for spiritual things. The καὶ carries us back to ii. 14: “A natural man does not receive the things of God . . ., and I (accordingly) could not utter (them) to you as to spiritual (men), but as to men of flesh”. Yet the Cor. were not uxikot (see note, ii. 14). For λαλῆσαι, see ii. 6; and on the recep- tivity of the πνευματικός, ii. 13 ff. Cf. Rom. viii. 5-9: oi κατὰ πνεῦμα ὄντες τὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος φρονοῦσιν.- (οὐκ . . . ὡς πνευματικοῖς), ἀλλ᾽ ὡς σαρκίνοις: “on the contrary, (I was obliged to speak to you) as to men of flesh ’—grammatical zeugma, as well as breviloquence: the affirmative “‘I was able,’ carried over from the negative clause οὐκ ἠδυνήθην,. passes into the kindred “I was obliged,” that is necessarily understood (cf. Eph. iv. 29) ; ver. 7, vil. 10, x. 24, are similarly expressed, without the zeugma.—Xdp- κινος (see paris.) differs from σαρκικός (3, ix. 11, etc.) as carneus from carnalis, fleischenn from fleischlich (as leathern from leathery) —-wos implying nature and constitution (ἐν σαρκὶ εἶναι). -ικὸς tendency or character (κατὰ σάρκα εἶναι). So σάρκινος is associated with νηπι- ότης, σαρκικὸς with ζῆλος καὶ ἔρις: see Trench, Syn., § Ixx. The distinction
50
786