1Cor 5:9, 11:10, 15:29 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 9. I wrote unto you . I have written. εγραψα. This word may either refer to this epistle, or to some former epistle. It simply denotes that he had written to them; but whether in the former part of this, or in some former epistle which is now lost, cannot be determined by the use of this word. In an epistle , εντηεπιστολη. There has been considerable diversity of opinion in regard to this expression. A large number of commentators--as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, most of the Latin commentators, and nearly all the Dutch commentators--suppose that this refers to the same epistle, and that the apostle means to say that in the former part of this epistle he had given them this direction. And in support of this interpretation they say that τη, here, is used for ταυτη, and appeal to the kindred passages in ; . Many others--as Grotius, Doddridge, Rosenmuller, etc.--suppose it to refer to some other epistle which is now lost, and which had been sent to them before their messengers had reached him. This epistle might have been very brief, and might have contained little more than this direction. That this is the correct opinion, may appear from the following considerations, viz.: (1.) It is the natural and obvious interpretation --one that would strike the great mass of men. It is just such an expression as Paul would have used on the supposition that he had written a previous epistle. (2.) It is the very expression which he uses in , where he is referring to this epistle as one which he had sent to them. (3.) It is not true that Paul had in any former part of this epistle given this direction. He had commanded them to remove an incestuous person, and such a command might seem to imply that they ought not to keep company with such a person; but it was not a general command not to have intercourse with them. (4.) It is altogether probable that Paul would write more letters than we have preserved. We have but fourteen of his remaining. Yet he laboured many years; founded many churches; and had frequent occasion to write to them. (5.) We know that a number of books have been lost which were either inspired or which were regarded as of authority by inspired men. Thus the books of Jasher, of Iddo the seer, etc., are referred to in the Old Testament; and there is no improbability that similar instances may have occurred in regard to the writers of the New Testament. (6.) In , he expressly makes a distinction between the epistle which he was then writing and the former one. "But now," i.e., in this epistle, "I have written εγραψα to you," etc., an expression which he would not use if referred to the same epistle. These considerations seem to me to be unanswerable, and to prove that Paul had sent another epistle to them in which he had given this direction. (7.) This opinion accords with that of a very large number of commentators. As an instance, Calvin says, "The epistle of which he here speaks is not now extant. Nor is it to be doubted that many others have perished; but it is sufficient that these survive to us which the Lord saw to be needful." If it be objected that this may affect the doctrine of the inspiration of the New Testament, since it is not to be supposed that God would suffer the writings of inspired men to be lost, we may reply, (a.) that there is no evidence that these writings were inspired. Paul often makes a distinction in regard to his own words and doctrines, as inspired or uninspired, see ; and the same thing may have occurred in his writings. (b.) This does not affect the inspiration of the books which remain, even on the supposition that those which were lost were inspired. It does not prove that these are not from God. If a man loses a guinea, it does not prove that those which he has not lost are counterfeit or worthless. (c.) If inspired, they may have answered the purpose which was designed by their inspirations and then have been suffered to be lost--as all inspired books will be destroyed at the end of the world. (d.) It is to be remembered that a large part of the discourses of the inspired apostles, and even the Saviour himself, , have been lost. And why should it be deemed any more wonderful that inspired books should be lost, than inspired oral teaching? Why more wonderful that a brief letter of Paul should be destroyed, than that numerous discourses of Him "who spake as never man spake" should be lost to the world? (e.) We should be thankful for the books that remain, and we may be assured that all the truth that is needful for our salvation has been preserved, and is in our hands. That any inspired books have been preserved amidst the efforts which have been made to destroy them all, is more a matter of wonder than that a few have been lost; and should rather lead us to gratitude that we have them, than to grief that a few, probably relating to local and comparatively unimportant matters, have been destroyed. Not to company , etc. Not to associate with. See ; . This, it seems, was a general direction on the subject. It referred to all who had this character. But the direction which he now proceeds to give, relates to a different matter --the proper degree of intercourse with those who were in the church. (c) "epistle" (*) "fornicators" "The impure"

1 Corinthians 5:9

Verse 9. I wrote unto you. I have written. εγραψα. This word may either refer to this epistle, or to some former epistle. It simply denotes that he had written to them; but whether in the former part of this, or in some former epistle which is now lost, cannot be determined by the use of this word.

In an epistle, εντηεπιστολη. There has been considerable diversity of opinion in regard to this expression. A large number of commentators--as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, most of the Latin commentators, and nearly all the Dutch commentators--suppose that this refers to the same epistle, and that the apostle means to say that in the former part of this epistle 1Cor 5:2 he had given them this direction. And in support of this interpretation they say that τη, here, is used for ταυτη, and appeal to the kindred passages in Rom 16:2; Col 4:6, 1Thes 5:27, 2Thes 3:3,4. Many others--as Grotius, Doddridge, Rosenmuller, etc.--suppose it to refer to some other epistle which is now lost, and which had been sent to them before their messengers had reached him. This epistle might have been very brief, and might have contained little more than this direction. That this is the correct opinion, may appear from the following considerations, viz.:

(1.) It is the natural and obvious interpretation --one that would strike the great mass of men. It is just such an expression as Paul would have used on the supposition that he had written a previous epistle.

(2.) It is the very expression which he uses in 2Cor 7:8, where he is referring to this epistle as one which he had sent to them.

(3.) It is not true that Paul had in any former part of this epistle given this direction. He had commanded them to remove an incestuous person, and such a command might seem to imply that they ought not to keep company with such a person; but it was not a general command not to have intercourse with them.

(4.) It is altogether probable that Paul would write more letters than we have preserved. We have but fourteen of his remaining. Yet he laboured many years; founded many churches; and had frequent occasion to write to them.

(5.) We know that a number of books have been lost which were either inspired or which were regarded as of authority by inspired men. Thus the books of Jasher, of Iddo the seer, etc., are referred to in the Old Testament; and there is no improbability that similar instances may have occurred in regard to the writers of the New Testament.

(6.) In 1Cor 5:11, he expressly makes a distinction between the epistle which he was then writing and the former one. "But now," i.e., in this epistle, "I have written εγραψα to you," etc., an expression which he would not use if 1Cor 5:9 referred to the same epistle. These considerations seem to me to be unanswerable, and to prove that Paul had sent another epistle to them in which he had given this direction.

(7.) This opinion accords with that of a very large number of commentators. As an instance, Calvin says, "The epistle of which he here speaks is not now extant. Nor is it to be doubted that many others have perished; but it is sufficient that these survive to us which the Lord saw to be needful." If it be objected that this may affect the doctrine of the inspiration of the New Testament, since it is not to be supposed that God would suffer the writings of inspired men to be lost, we may reply,

(a.) that there is no evidence that these writings were inspired. Paul often makes a distinction in regard to his own words and doctrines, as inspired or uninspired, see 1Cor 7; and the same thing may have occurred in his writings.

(b.) This does not affect the inspiration of the books which remain, even on the supposition that those which were lost were inspired. It does not prove that these are not from God. If a man loses a guinea, it does not prove that those which he has not lost are counterfeit or worthless.

(c.) If inspired, they may have answered the purpose which was designed by their inspirations and then have been suffered to be lost--as all inspired books will be destroyed at the end of the world.

(d.) It is to be remembered that a large part of the discourses of the inspired apostles, and even the Saviour himself, Jn 21:25, have been lost. And why should it be deemed any more wonderful that inspired books should be lost, than inspired oral teaching? Why more wonderful that a brief letter of Paul should be destroyed, than that numerous discourses of Him "who spake as never man spake" should be lost to the world?

(e.) We should be thankful for the books that remain, and we may be assured that all the truth that is needful for our salvation has been preserved, and is in our hands. That any inspired books have been preserved amidst the efforts which have been made to destroy them all, is more a matter of wonder than that a few have been lost; and should rather lead us to gratitude that we have them, than to grief that a few, probably relating to local and comparatively unimportant matters, have been destroyed.

Not to company, etc. Not to associate with. See Eph 5:11; 2Thes 3:14. This, it seems, was a general direction on the subject. It referred to all who had this character. But the direction which he now 1Cor 5:11 proceeds to give, relates to a different matter --the proper degree of intercourse with those who were in the church.

1 Corinthians 11:10

Verse 10. For this cause, etc. There is scarcely any passage in the Scriptures which has more exercised the ingenuity of commentators than this verse. The various attempts which have been made to explain it may be seen in Pool, Rosenmuller, Bloomfield, etc. After all the explanations which have been given of it, I confess I do not understand it. It is not difficult to see what the connexion requires us to suppose in the explanation. The obvious interpretation would be, that a woman should have a veil on her head because of the angels who were supposed to be present, observing them in their public worship; and it is generally agreed that the word power (εξουσιαν) denotes a veil, or a covering for the head. But the word power does not occur in this sense in any classic writer. Bretschneider understands it of a veil, as being a defence or guard to the face, lest it should be seen by others. Some have supposed that it was the name of a female ornament that was worn on the head, formed of braids of hair set with jewels. Most commentators agree that it means a veil, though some think (see Bloomfield) that it is called power to denote the veil which was worn by married women, which indicated the superiority of the married woman to the maiden. But it is sufficient to say in reply to this, that the apostle is not referring to married women in contradistinction from those who are unmarried, but is showing that all women who prophesy or pray in public should be veiled. There can, perhaps, be no doubt that the word "power" has reference to a veil, or to a covering for the head; but why it is called power I confess I do not understand; and most of the comments on the word are, in my view, egregious trifling.

Because of the angels. Some have explained this of good angels who were supposed to be present in their assemblies, (see Doddridge;) others refer it to evil angels; and others to messengers or spies who, it has been supposed, were present in their public assemblies, and who would report greatly to the disadvantage of the Christian assemblies if the women were seen to be unveiled. I do not know what it means; and I regard it as one of the very few passages in the Bible whose meaning as yet is wholly inexplicable. The most natural interpretation seems to me to be this: "A woman in the public assemblies, and in speaking in the presence of men, should wear a veil--the usual symbol of modesty and subordination --because the angels of God are witnesses of your public worship, (Heb 1:14,) and because they know and appreciate the propriety of subordination and order in public assemblies." According to this, it would mean that the simple reason would be that the angels were witnesses of their worship; and that they were the friends of propriety, due subordination, and order; and that they ought to observe these in all assemblies convened for the worship of God. I do not know that this sense has been proposed by any commentator; but it is one which strikes me as the most obvious and natural, and consistent with the context. The following remarks respecting the ladies of Persia may throw some light on this subject:-- "The head-dress of the women is simple: their hair is drawn behind the head, and divided into several tresses: the beauty of this head-dress consists in the thickness and length of these tresses, which should fall even down to the heels--in default of which, they lengthen them with tresses of silk. The ends of these tresses they decorate with pearls and jewels, or ornaments of gold or silver. The head is covered, under the veil or kerchief, (couvre chef), only by the end of a small bandeau, shaped into a triangle: this bandeau, which is of various colours, is thin and light. The bandalette is embroidered by the needle, or covered with jewelry, according to the quality of the wearer. This is, in my opinion, the ancient tiara, or diadem, of the queens of Persia: only married women wear it; and it is the mark by which it is known that they are under subjection, (c'est ld la marque a laquelle on reeonnoit qu'elles sont Sous PUISSANCE---power.) The girls have little caps, instead of this kerchief or tiara; they wear no veil at home, but let two tresses of their hair fall under their cheeks. The caps of girls of superior rank are tied with a row of pearls. Girls are not shut up in Persia till they attain the age of six or seven years; before that age they go out of the seraglio, sometimes with their father, so that they may then be seen. I have seen some wonderfully pretty. They show the neck and bosom; and more beautiful cannot be seen.'--Chardin. "The wearing of a veil by a married woman was a token of her being under power. The Hebrew name of the veil signifies dependence. Great importance was attached to this part of the dress in the East. All the women of Persia are pleasantly apparelled. When they are abroad in the streets, all, both rich and poor, are covered with a great veil, or sheet of very fine white cloth, of which one half, like a forehead cloth, comes down to the eyes, and, going over the head, reaches down to the heels; and the other half muffles up the face below the eyes, and being fastened with a pin to the left side of the head, falls down to their very shoes, even covering their hands, with which they hold that cloth by the two sides; so that, except the eyes, they are covered all over with it. Within doors they have their faces and breasts uncovered; but the Armenian women in their houses have always one half of their faces covered with a cloth, that goes athwart their noses, and hangs over their chin and breasts, except the maids of that nation, who, within doors, cover only the chin until they are married."--Thevenot.

(1) "power" "a covering, in sign that she is under the power of her" "husband"; Gen 24:55

(*) "on" "A veil on"

1 Corinthians 15:29

Verse 29. Else what shall they do, etc. The apostle here resumes the argument for the resurrection which was interrupted at 1Cor 15:19. He goes on to state further consequences which must follow from the denial of this doctrine, and thence infers that the doctrine must be true. There is, perhaps, no passage of the New Testament in respect to which there has been a greater variety of interpretation than this; and the views of expositors now by no means harmonize in regard to its meaning. It is possible that Paul may here refer to some practice or custom which existed in his time respecting baptism, the knowledge of which is now lost. The various opinions which have been entertained in regard to this passage, together with an examination of them, may be seen in Pool's Synopsis, Rosenmuller, and Bloomfield. It may be not useless just to refer to some of them, that the perplexity of commentators may be seen.

(1.) It has been held by some, that by "the dead" here is meant the Messiah who was put to death, the plural being used for the singular, meaning "the dead one."

(2.) By others, that the word baptized here is taken in the sense of washing, cleansing, purifying, as in Mk 7:4, Heb 9:10 and that the sense is, that the dead were carefully washed and purified when buried, with the hope of the resurrection, and, as it were, preparatory to that.

(3.) By others, that to be baptized for the dead means to be baptized as dead, being baptized into Christ, and buried with him in baptism, and that by their immersion they were regarded as dead.

(4.) By others, that the apostle refers to a custom of vicarious baptism, or being baptized for those who were dead, referring to the practice of having some person baptized in the place of one who had died without baptism. This was the opinion of Grotius, Michaelis, Tertullian, and Ambrose. Such was the estimate which was formed, it is supposed, of the importance of baptism, that when one had died without being baptized, some other person was baptized over his dead body in his place. That this custom prevailed in the church after the time of Paul has been abundantly proved by Grotius, and is generally admitted. But the objections to this interpretation are obvious.

(a.) There is no evidence that such a custom prevailed in the time of Paul.

(b.) It cannot be believed that Paul would give countenance to a custom so senseless and so contrary to the Scripture, or that he would make it the foundation of a solemn argument.

(c.) It does not accord with the strain and purpose of his argument, If this custom had been referred to, his design would have led him to say, "What will become of them for whom others have been baptized? Are we to believe that they have perished?"

(d.) It is far more probable that the custom referred to in this opinion arose from an erroneous interpretation of this passage of Scripture, than that it existed in the time of Paul.

(5.) There remain two other opinions, both of which are plausible, and one of which is probably the true one. One is, that the word baptized is used here as it is in Mt 20:22,23, Mk 10:39 Lk 12:50, in the sense of being overwhelmed with calamities, trials, and sufferings; and as meaning that the apostles and others were subjected to great trials on account of the dead, i.e., in the hope of the resurrection, or with the expectation that the dead would rise. This is the opinion of Lightfoot, Rosenmuller, Pearce, Hornberg, Krause, and of Prof. Robinson, (Lex. art. βαπτιζω) and has much that is plausible. That the word is thus used to denote a deep sinking into calamities, there can be no doubt. And that the apostles and early Christians subjected themselves, or were subjected, to great and overwhelming calamities on account of the hope of the resurrection, is equally clear. This interpretation also agrees with the general tenor of the argument; and is an argument for the resurrection. And it implies that this was the full and constant belief of all who endured these trials, that there would be a resurrection of the dead. The argument would be, that they should be slow to adopt an opinion which would imply that all their sufferings were endured for nought, and that God had supported them in this in vain; that God had plunged them into all these sorrows, and had sustained them in them only to disappoint them. That this view is plausible, and that it suits the strain of remark in the following verses, is evident. But there are objections to it.

(a.) It is not the usual and natural meaning of the word baptize.

(b.) A metaphorical use of a word should not be resorted to unless necessary.

(c.) The literal meaning of the word here will as well meet the design of the apostle as the metaphorical.

(d.) This interpretation does not relieve us from any of the difficulties in regard to the phrase "for the dead;" and

(e.) it is altogether more natural to suppose that the apostle would derive his argument from the baptism of all who were Christians, than from the figurative baptism of a few who went into the perils of martyrdom. The other opinion therefore is, that the apostle here refers to baptism as administered to all believers. This is the most correct opinion; is the most simple, and best meets the design of the argument. According to this, it means that they had been baptized with the hope and expectation of a resurrection of the dead. They had received this as one of the leading doctrines of the gospel when they were baptized. It was a part of their full and firm belief that the dead would rise. The argument according to this interpretation is, that this was an essential article of the faith of a Christian; that it was embraced by all; that it constituted a part of their very profession; and that for any one to deny it, was to deny that which entered into the very foundation of the Christian faith. If they embraced a different doctrine, if they denied the doctrine of the resurrection, they struck a blow at the very nature of Christianity, and dashed all the hopes which had been cherished and expressed at their baptism. And what could they do? What would become of them? What would be the destiny of all who were thus baptized? Was it to be believed that all their hopes at baptism were vain, and that they would all perish? As such a belief could not be entertained, the apostle infers that, if they held to Christianity at all, they must hold to this doctrine as apart of their very profession. According to this view, the phrase "for the dead" means, with reference to the dead; with direct allusion to the condition of the dead, and their hopes; with a belief that the dead will rise. It is evident that the passage is elliptical, and this seems to be as probable as any interpretation which has been suggested. Mr. Locke says, frankly, "What this baptizing for the dead was, I know not; but it seems, by the following verses, to be something wherein they exposed themselves to the danger of death." Tindal translates it, "over the dead." Doddridge renders it, "in the room of the dead, who are just fallen in the cause of Christ, but are yet supported by a succession of new converts, who immediately offer themselves to fill up their places, as ranks of soldiers that advance to the combat in the room of their companions who have just been slain in their sight."

(b) "which are baptized" Rom 6:3,4 (*) "for the dead" "in the place of"