With the leaven removed and the Pass- over Lamb slain, “let us keep the feast”’ (ἑορτάζωμεν, pr. sbj. of continued action) —this term again allegorical not literal (see ἄζυμοι, 7), ‘‘a figurative charac- terisation of the whole Christian conduct of life’ (Mr.). ἅπας 6 βίος αὐτοῦ πανήγυρις ayia (Clem. Al., Sivom., viii., quoted by Ed.); to the same effect Cm., δείκνυσιν ὅτι πᾶς 6 χρόνος ἑορτῆς ἐστι καιρὸς τ. Χριστιανοῖς διὰ τ. ὑπερβολὴν τ. ἀγαθῶν αὐτοῖς δοθέντων. διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ 6 vids τ. Θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος γέγονε καὶ ἰτύθη, ἵνα σε ἑορτάζειν ποιήσῃ; Cf, earlier than P., Philo’s interpretation of
8—10.,
9. Ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ ’ἐπιστολῇ μὴ 3συναναμίγνυσθαι " πόρνοις
το. καὶ }
δΙΙ
.Ρ2 Cor. vii.. 8; Rom.
οὐ "πάντως τοῖς πόρνοις τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, ἢ τοῖς ' πλεο- aan
νέκταις ἢ 2 "ἅρπαξιν ἢ "εἰδωλολάτραις, " ἐπεὶ *ddheihete® “dipad νι iii.
v. 5; 1 Tim. i. 10; twice in Heb., and in Rev. ‘and Lk.
15; Lk. xviii. 11; -γη, Mt. xxiii. 25; Heb. x. 34. R x In this tense and sense (ωφειλ), 2 Cr. xii. 11; Heb. ii. 17; Lk. xvii. το.
Ww vii. 14.
t vi. 10; Eph. v. 5; -τεω, 2 Cor. ii. 11, vii. 2, xii. 17 f., 1 Th. iv. 6.
r vi.9; Eph. 5 ix. 10, 22, xvi. 12; Rom. iii. 9; 4 times in Acts u vi. 10; Mt. vii. ν Vi. 9, x. 7; Eph. v. 5; Rev. xxi. 8, xxii. 15.
10m. και αἲἱ uncc. but $eDcLP. 2 «at (not η before αρπ.), all uncc. but Νε Ρε], ἕωφειλετε, all uncc. but D’P.
the Feast, De migr. Abrah., 16; Decongr. querend. erudit. gratia, 28. For ὥστε with impv., see note on iv. 5.—The ἄζυμα (unleavened cakes), to be partaken of by the ἄζυμοι (7), are described by the attributes εἰλικρινίας καὶ ἀληθείας, “of sincerity and truth’”—a sound inward disposition, and a right position in accord with the reality of things. To the for- bidden ἐν ζύμῃ παλαιᾷ (see note, 7) is added, by way of closer specification, μηδὲ ἐν ζύμῃ κακίας κ. πονηρίας (malitie et nequitig)—‘«axia the vicious dispo- sition, πονηρία the active exercise of it” (νε). εξ: Exench},, Sy.5..§..rr... The associations of approaching Easter, pro- bably, suggested this train of thought (cf. XV. 23, ἀπαρχή); nowhere else does P. call Christ “the Pascha”’.
§ 16. A Previous LETTER MISREAD, v. 9-13. The Cor. Church were taking no action against the offender of § 15; in this neglect they disregarded the Apostle’s instructions conveyed by some recent letter. These instructions they appear to have misunderstood, reading them as though Paul forbade Christians to have any dealings with immoral persons, and asking for further explanation. Not im- probably, they were making their un- certainty on the general question an excuse for hesitation in this urgent and flagrant case. Accordingly the Ap., after giving sentence upon the πόρνος of vv. 1 f., repeats with all possible distinctness his direction to excommunicate persons of openly immoral life from the Church. Profligates of the world must be left to God’s sole judgment. P. felt that there was an evasion, prompted by the disposi- tion to palter with sin, in the misunder- standing reported to him; hence the closing words of the last. Section, con- demning the “'Ίεανεπ of badness and wickedness ” and commending the ‘“ un- leavened bread of sincerity and truth’’. On the nature and occasion of the lost letter, see Introd., chap. ii.
Ver.g. “I wrote to you in the (my) letter”—the last the Cor. had received from P., which is recalled by the matter just discussed. The Ff., except Am- brosiaster (? Hilary of Rome, prob. Isaac, a converted Jew), referred the ἔγραψα to this £)., reading the vb. as epistolary aorist (as in 11; see Bn. § 44); but there is nothing in 1 Cor. to sustain the ref., and ἐν tH ἐπιστολῇ seems “added expressly to guard against this interpretation’? (Ed.). Modern exposi- tors, from Ον. downwards, find the traces here of a lost Ep. antecedent to our First ; 2 Cor. x. 10 f. intimates that the Cor. had received several letters from P. before the canonical Second. Some have found in 2 Cor. vi. 14-vii. 1 a stray leaf of the missing document; that par. is certainly germane to its purpose (see Hilgenfeld, Einleit. in das N.T., p. 287; Whitelaw, in Classical Review, 1890, pp. 12, 317 f.). The ambiguity lay in the word ovvava- µίγνυσθαι (to mix oneself up with), which forbids social intimacy, while those who wished to misunderstand took it as a prohibition of all intercourse.