Ver. 36. The Ap. adds the authority of Christian usage to that of natural in- stinct (cf. the connexion of xi. 14 and 16), in a tone of indignant protest: ‘‘ Or (is it) from you (that) the word of God went out? or to you only did it reach?” —1i.e., ‘*Neque primi, neque soli estis Christiani’”’ (Est.). The Cor. acted with- out thinking of any but themselves, as though they were the one Church in the world, or might set the fashion to all the rest (see note oni, 2b; also 33 above, and xi. 16). For the self-sufficiency of this
916
p Lk. i. 6. εντ. Θ., see vii. 19. Cf. also ix. 14, Vii. 40, ii. 16.
q 2 Cor. vi. 9 (pass.) ;
“Ttdéw γινέσθω.
Ρ Κυρίου εἰσὶν] Ρἐντολαί1: 38. εἰ 30. Ὥστε, ἀδελφοί,ξ " {ηλοῦτε τὸ ᾿ προφητεύειν, καὶ τὸ "λαλεῖν 4 ἐγλώσσαις ὃ "ph " κωλύετε.ὃ
~ , t δέ τις 3 ἀγνοεῖ, ἃ ἀγνοείτω.
40. πάντα ὃ " εὐσχημόνως καὶ κατὰ
Rom. ii. 4) vi. 3, vii. 1, x. 3; Gal. i. 22 (pass.); 1 Τΐπι. 1. 14. See also x.1. Six times in N.T. besides
(see esp. 2 Pet. ii. 12). etc. see xii. 24; -οσυνη, Xii. 23. ατακτος,-ως,1 Th. v. 14; 2 Th. iii. 6, 11.
Sir. v. 15.
r See xii. 31. For κωλ. in Ῥ., Rom. i. 13; 1 Th. ii. 16; 1 Tim. iv. 3. w Col. ii. 5; Lk. i. 8; Heb. ν. 6, etc.; Job xxxviii. 12. Cf. xv. 23.
5 See xi. 5. t See xiii. 1. u Mt. xix. 14, v Rom. xiii. 13; 1 Th. iv. 12; -μων, Contrast
1εστιν εντολη: NAB, 17, cop., Aug. (Nc, εντ. eor.). D*G, 14, Or., Hil., Ambrst., εστιν simply (Western); so Tisch. εισιν εντολαι: Syrian emendation.
Σαγνοειται (?): N*A*D*G, ΟΓ., latt. vg., Amb., Ambrst., Hil.; so Lachm.,
Tr. marg., Tisch., W.H. ἐλέ., R.V. marg.,
Nestle. Possibly a Western corruption.
αγνοειτω (?): SgcA?BDbc, etc.; retained by Tr. txt., R.V. tat., W.H. marg. See
note below.
δαᾳαδελφοι pov: SAB*, 67**, syrr. cop. Om. pov Western and Syrian.
4 ev γλωσσαις: BD*G, cop., Tr. marg.
ὅτο λαλειν py KwoAveTe yAwooats (in this order): ΔΑΡΒΡ, 17, 73—con- formed by Western and Syrian edd. to usual order.
Seavra δε: all uncc. but KL.
church, cf. iv. 6 ff.,v.2. On καταγτάω eis, see x. 11.—% links this ver. with the foregoing, ‘Or (if what I have said is not sufficient), etc.”
Vv. 37, 38. ἃ γράφω ὑμῖν, in the apodosis, includes, beside the last par- ticular (34 ff.), the other instructions of this Ep.; προφήτης and πνευματικὸς in the protasis recall esp. the directions of chh. xil.-xiv.: cf. xi. 4, xil. I, xiv. I.— δοκεῖ, as in iii. 18 (see note), is putat, sibi videtur (not videtur alone, Vg.), de- noting self-estimation. The term πνεν- ματικὸς includes every one endowed with a special gift of the Spirit; cf. the pl. πνεύματα, νετ. 12. Hf. and Hn. think however that the disjunctive ἢ narrows the ref. of ‘‘spiritual,” by contrast with ‘« prophet,” to the sense of ‘‘ speaker with tongues’’; but this is a needless infer- ence from the part.; the Ap. means ““α prophet, or a man of the Spirit (in any sense)’. The adj. πνευματικός (in masc. : see parls.) refers not to spiritual powers (τὰ πνευματικά, xii. I, etc.), but to spiritual character (=6 κατὰ πνεῦμα, ἐν πνεύµατι, Rom. viii.), which gives in- sight in matters of revelation (cf. John Vii. 17, Vili. 31 f.). While the true “ pro- phet,’’ having a kindred inspiration (cf. 29), will ‘know well of the things” the Ap. “writes, that they are a commandment of the Lord” (Κυρίου ἐστὶν ἐντολή, ‘‘are what the Lord commands ”’; ¢f. ii. 10-16, vii. 40, and notes, 2 Cor. xiii. 3), this ability belongs to ‘‘the spiritual ’’ gener-
ally, who ‘‘judge all things” (ii. 15); being ‘fof God,” they hear His voice in others (cf. John viii. 42 f., etc.; τ John ii. 20, iv. 6). The “Lord” is Christ, the Head of the Church, who ‘‘ gives com- mandment to His Apostles” (cf. vii. 10, 25, xi. 23, ΧΙΙ. 3, etc. ; Matt. xxviii. 20, etc.). —For ἐπι-γινωσκέτω, cf. xiii. r2— judi- cet atque agnoscat’’ (Est.); the pr. impv. asks for a continued acknowledgment of Christ’s authority in His Apostle.—“But if any one is ignorant (of this), heisignored”’ (ἀγνοεῖται)--ᾱ retribution in kind. The professor of Divine knowledge who does not discern Paul’s inspiration, proves his ignorance; his character as ‘‘ prophet” or ‘spiritual’? is not recognised, since he does not recognise the Apostle’s char- acter; cf. Matt. x. τή f., 41, John xiii. 20, for this criterion as laid down by Christ; the Ap. John assumes it in 1 iv. 6.—dayoetrat, is pr. in tense, ignoratur (not ignorabitur, Vg.), affirming an actual rejection—sc. by the Lord, who says to such despisers of His servants, ““I know you not” (cf. viii. 3; 2 Tim.ii.19; John ν. 42, etc.); but by His Apostle too, who cannot acknowledge for fellow-servants men who repudiate the Lord’s authority in him (cf. 3 John 9 f.). Christ foretold that He would have to disown ‘‘ many who had prophesied” in His name (Matt. vii. 22 8). If ἀγνοείτω be read (still pre- ferred by Mr., Bt., Ev., Gd., with R.V. txt.), the impv. is permissive, as in vii. 15: ‘‘sibi suzque ignorantiz relinquen-