Vv. 2, 3. If not at Corinth amongst those who cried ‘I am of Cephas,” elsewhere Paul’s apostleship was denied by the Judaistic party, against whom he.
δ46
ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ ἃ
g2Cor. vii. 1, ἡ ἐμὴ “dawodoyia τοῖς ἐμὲ " ἀνακρίνουσιν αὕτη 1 €ori!: 4. ' μὴ
στ ΕΠΗ." i. 7, 16; 2ἱ οὐκ Tim. iv. ae
16; 1 Pet.* ἐξουσίαν ἀδελφὴν > γυναῖκα
iii. 15 (with dat.); Acts xxii. 1, xxv. 16. Ν.Τ. 4.1.; Ezek. xxxvii. 2.
h See ii. 14.
4 je 3 i xi. 22; Rom. x. 18 Ε. Cf. Acts xiii. 11; Mt. iv. 23, etc.
> / tal - Χ ἔχομεν Ἔ ἐξουσίαν Φαγεῖν καὶ meiv?; 5. ! μὴ ' οὐκ " ἔχομεν 3
1 περιάγειν, ὡς καὶ ot λοιποὶ ™ ἀπό-
k See vii. 37. 1 Trans., m In this sense, xii. 28 f., xv. 7,
ο: 2 Cor. xi. 5 (?); Gal. i. 17, 19; Eph. ii. 20, iii. 5, iv. 11; 1 Th. ii. 6; 2 Pet. iii. 2; Gospp. and
1εστιν αντη (in this order): ABP 17, 37, 46. 2merv, B*; or wuv, N*D*G. See Wr., p. 112. 3 Clem. Al., Hier., Aug., Hil., with the arm. vers., read Ύνναικας or αδελφας
γνναικας, conforming the obj. to exopev.
had afterwards to write 2 Cor. x. ff. In this trial he counts on the Cor. standing by him: “If to others I am no apostle, at any rate (ἀλλά ye, at certe, Bz.) 1 am to you”. He does not say “of others,” as though distinguishing two fields of juris- diction in the sense of Gal. ii. 8, rather “in the eyes of others’’; cf. the dat. of viii. 6. For ἀλλά ye, cf. Plato, Gorg., 470 D., εἰ δὲ μὴ (Spa), GAN ἀκούω ye.—ye throws its emphasis on ὑμῖν; so P. con- tinues: ‘‘ The seal of my apostleship you are, in the Lord”; cf. Rom. iv. 11, 2 Cor. i. 22. This seal came from the hand of the Lord, affixed by the Master to His servant’s work (cf. 2 Cor. iii. τ Π.). Despite its imperfections, the Cor. Church was a shining evidence of Paul’s commission; it was probably the largest Church as yet raised in his independent ministry. For ἐν Κυρίῳ, see note on iv. 15, and vii. 22.—‘ This” —teferring to vv. I, 2—‘‘is my answer to those that put me on my defence’: I point them to you |---ἀπολογία (see parls.) is a self- exculpation. For ἀνακρίνω, cf. notes on ii. 14 f., iv. 4.—It is Paul’s ἀποστολή, not the ἐξουσία of vv. 4 ff., that is called in question; hence the vein of self-defence pervading the Epp. of this period. Granted the apostleship (and this the readers cannot deny), the right followed as a matter of course: this needed no “apology”.
Vv. 4-6. The rights P. vindicates for himself and his fellow-labourers in the Gospel, are (a) the right to maintenance ; (b) to marriage ; (c) to release from manual labour.—(a) μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν; “Is it that we have not? ”’—ironical question, as in xi. 22—“ Of course we have”. P. writes in pl. collegas includens (Bg.), the ἄποσ- τολὴ suggesting of λοιποὶ mentioned in the next ver.—éfovotav φαγεῖν καὶ πεῖν (later Gr. for πιεῖν), “right to eat and -drink,”"—sc. as guests of the Church: see
Mark vi. 10, Luke x. 7, xxii. 30. The added καὶ πεῖν, and the illustrations of vv. 7 and 13, show that the obj. of the two vbs. is not the idolothyta, but the material provision for Christ’s apostles, supplied by those they serve (11); this ἐξουσία is analogous to, not parl. with, that of viii. 9, belonging not to the ἐλεύθερος as such, but to the ἀπόστολος; cf. the Didaché, 13, “‘ Every true prophet is worthy of his food’’. George Fox characteristically notes the moderation of the demand: “The Ap. said ‘ Have I not power to eat and to drink? * But he did not say, ‘to take tithes, Easter reckon- ings, Midsummer dues, augmentations, and great sums of money’.” ἐξουσίαν, as a verbal noun, governs the bare inf., like ἔξεστιν.---(ϐ) Paul claims, in order to renounce, the ἐξουσίαν ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα περιάγειν---ἴπε “right to take about (with us) a sister as wife’”—1.¢,, a Christian wife: brachyology for “‘to have a Chris- tian sister to wife, and take her about with us”’.—aSeXpny is obj., γυναῖκα objec- tive complement to περιάγειν, on which the stress lies; ‘‘non ex habendo, sed ex circumducendo sumtus afferebatur ec- clesiis’’ (Bg.). The Clementine Vg. ren- dering, mulierem sororem circumducendi (as though from γυν. ἀδελφ.), gives a sense at variance both with grammar and decorum, not to be justified by Luke viii. 2 f. This misinterpreted text was used in defence of the scandalous practice of priests and monks keeping as “sisters” γυναῖκες συνεισακτοί, which was con- demned by the Nicene Council, and often subsequently; so Jerome (Ep. 23, ad Eustoch.), ' Agapetarum pestis . . . sine nuptiis aliud nomen uxorum . . . novum concubinarum genus” (see Suicer’s The- saurus,$. vv.’ Αγαπητή, Αδελφή).---Έτοπι the ὡς καὶ clause it appears that ‘the rest of the App.,” generally speaking, were married, and their wives often travelled