In the second part of the argument he explains the reason why he had refrained from imparting higher doctrines to the Corinthians and had resolved to know nothing except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified, in his preaching to them. As we already hinted above (on 1 Cor 1:12), Apollos seemed to have pleased certain neophytes not only because of a more learned and eloquent manner of preaching, but also because of certain higher doctrines which Paul had not yet taught. As a result, they came to despise Paul as though he were an unlearned teacher. Therefore Paul, after showing that his simple preaching is perfectly in accord with the Gospel—which stands in opposition to worldly wisdom—goes on to teach that nevertheless a wisdom so lofty is contained in the Gospel that it could not be attained by human intellect but had to be revealed by the Holy Spirit alone (1 Cor 2:6–12); yet this wisdom, revealed to the Apostles through the Holy Spirit, ought not to be announced to all indiscriminately, but only to the “perfect” (1 Cor 2:13–16), and for that reason he had not yet announced it to the Corinthians (1 Cor 3:1–5).
a.) A lofty wisdom is contained in the Gospel, inaccessible to the human intellect, and revealed to the Apostles through the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2:6–12).
When the Apostle denied that he wished to know anything among the Corinthians except Christ crucified, he had already clearly implied that elsewhere he also handed on other—and higher—doctrines; and this he now explains more fully in this part of the argument, whose connection with what precedes is clear (cf. Thomas Aquinas): “I did not wish to know anything among you except Christ crucified… but we speak wisdom among the perfect.” From this contrast it is already evident that the Greek Fathers (Chrysostom, Theodoret, John of Damascus, Oecumenius, Theophylact) are not quite correct in understanding by “wisdom” the same doctrine which Paul previously, by antiphrasis, called “folly,” and by “the perfect” all the faithful without distinction. Rather, with the Latin interpreters (Pelagius, Primasius, Hervaeus, Thomas Aquinas, etc.), it must be firmly held that the Apostle distinguishes two classes of the faithful: beginners and the unformed, whom he calls “natural” or “carnal” (1 Cor 2:14; 3:1), and “little ones,” who need milk (1 Cor 3:2; cf. Heb 5:12); and the perfect, whom he calls “spiritual,” who are capable of solid food (1 Cor 2:13; 3:2). Accordingly, two kinds of Christian wisdom are also distinguished: one, which he previously called folly and set in opposition to worldly wisdom; and another, which in this passage he contrasts with simple Christian doctrine and compares to solid food, suitable not for infants in Christ but for the mature.
With Thomas Aquinas and by far the majority of interpreters, therefore, we must understand by “wisdom” in this passage a “profound doctrine extending to the hidden mysteries of divine things” (Summa Theologiae II–II, q. 45, a. 5 ad 1), and by “the perfect” those “who, by habitual practice, have their senses trained to discern good and evil” (Heb 5:14). Explaining these words, Chrysostom rightly observes that the Apostle is speaking not so much of discerning moral good and evil, as of “judging sound and lofty doctrines as opposed to corrupt and base ones.” Hence Thomas Aquinas rightly defines the perfect as those “whose mind is raised above all carnal and sensible things so that they can grasp spiritual and intelligible realities, and whose will is lifted above all temporal things and clings to God alone and to His commandments.”
Indeed, perfection of the will is also required, not only because its corruption hinders the right use of the intellect, but also because the wisdom of which the Apostle speaks is directed toward the intimate union of the whole person with God. “It is necessary,” says Thomas, “that the one who is instructed in the doctrine of faith be well disposed not only in intellect, to understand and believe, but also in will and affection, to love and to act.”
Formerly the Gnostics (cf. St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.2.1) and the Manicheans (cf. St. Augustine, Against the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets II.2) inferred from this text that there was one exoteric doctrine openly proposed by the Apostles to all the faithful, and another hidden doctrine handed down to a few elect and transmitted to them. There is no need to refute this, since it is clear that the Apostle is speaking of one and the same doctrine, which was proposed in a simpler manner to catechumens and in a fuller and deeper manner to the initiated. That God is the Creator of all things is taught both in children’s catechisms and in theological schools: to children the simple dogma is given with simple reasoning, while to theologians the same dogma is explained with all its relations, arguments, and difficulties—milk for the former, solid food for the latter.
If one asks which doctrines pertain especially to the wisdom preached to the perfect and which were handed on to infants in Christ, we must admit that we do not know. For although the Apostle denies that he preached—or could even then preach—“wisdom” to the Corinthians (1 Cor 3:2), he nevertheless presupposes in this very epistle many doctrines known to them which today we unhesitatingly count among the profound. Moreover, he treats the same distinction of doctrines in Hebrews 5:11–6:3, and from that passage we learn certain teachings given to beginners and at least one doctrine reserved for the perfect. For as he is about to move on to Christ’s Melchizedekian priesthood, he warns that it cannot be understood by beginners; whereas he enumerates the basic elements of simpler doctrine: repentance and faith, baptism and the laying on of hands, resurrection and judgment.
Now in that treatise on Christ’s priesthood the Apostle makes extensive use of typological interpretation of Scripture; and in this epistle too, when introducing a typological argument, he exhorts the readers to receive it not as children but as the perfect (1 Cor 14:20). Thus we rightly maintain that this more abstruse mode of teaching through types was appropriately employed among the “perfect” and belongs to “wisdom.” Others draw various doctrines into this category, for example Estius (followed almost slavishly by some non-Catholics) mentions doctrines “on divine election and reprobation, the calling of the Gentiles and the present rejection of the Jews, Antichrist, and the state and manner of the resurrection”; but I do not know on what foundation these and many similar modern non-Catholic enumerations rest.
To explain his thesis—“we speak wisdom among the perfect”—the Apostle first of all demonstrates the excellence of this wisdom from its wholly supernatural character: it is not of this age, but of God alone (1 Cor 2:6–7); it was not known to the rulers of this age, but to God alone (vv. 8–9); and God communicated it to the Apostles through His Spirit (1 Cor 2:10–12).
Accordingly, the Apostles do indeed proclaim wisdom—but not the wisdom of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away. Pagan philosophy and the carnal interpretation of Scripture among the Jews belong to this age (cf. on 1 Cor 1:20), since they were devised by people of this age, deal with matters of this age, and proceed by merely human reasoning. Far higher than these stands the doctrine of the Apostles, to which even the rulers of this age did not attain—whether by that name are meant pagan philosophers and Jewish scribes, pagan kings and Jewish priests, or demons. On them depends the wisdom of this world; but what draws its origin from a perishable reality must itself perish. Thus, just as the rulers of this world will be destroyed, so too will the wisdom of this world pass away.
But apostolic wisdom, which does not depend on them, is eternal. This becomes clearer if we consider its nature and character, which the Apostle describes: “But we speak God’s wisdom in mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God predestined before the ages for our glory.” In contrast to the wisdom of this age, the wisdom of God has its origin in God, treats of divine realities, and proceeds by reasons revealed by God. It is said to be “in mystery” because it consists in mystery—that is, it is so hidden that it cannot be reached by natural powers, but is made known by divine revelation. To make this clearer, the Apostle calls it τὴν ἀποκεκρυμμένην (“the hidden [wisdom]”), that is, not only hidden in former times, but such that it would remain hidden even now and in the future unless God revealed it. This is the force of the perfect passive participle, which indicates a past action whose effect endures.
This hidden wisdom God predestined before the ages—that is, from eternity—for our glory, that is, for the glory of all the faithful, not only of the Apostles who proclaimed it. For our future glory consists in this: that we shall no longer see God “in a mirror and in an enigma,” but face to face, possessing the whole wisdom that is now hidden. Yet this glory has already begun in this life, since after Christ’s coming “with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, we are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord” (2 Cor 3:18). Hence it is also evident that this apostolic wisdom will not perish like the wisdom of the rulers of this age, who are destined for destruction.
As to the grammatical construction of the phrase λαλοῦμεν Θεοῦ σοφίαν ἐν μυστηρίῳ τὴν ἀποκεκρυμμένην (“we speak God’s wisdom in mystery, the hidden [wisdom]”), it is disputed. Some connect ἐν μυστηρίῳ with λαλοῦμεν, so that the sense would be either “we speak God’s wisdom in secret and among the few,” or “we speak it as a mystery.” The first explanation must be excluded, since Paul has already said among whom he speaks it and is not referring to secret doctrine; the second does not suit the usage of the preposition ἐν. Theodoret already noted that the sense is not “we speak in mystery,” but “we speak the wisdom that is hidden in mystery.” Hence ἐν μυστηρίῳ is to be joined with τὴν ἀποκεκρυμμένην. Though this transposition is somewhat harsh, the better explanation with most modern interpreters is to take ἐν μυστηρίῳ as an adjectival phrase modifying σοφίαν (“wisdom in mystery”), with τὴν ἀποκεκρυμμένην in apposition.
1 Cor 2:8 Who the “rulers of this age” are—who are also said to have crucified Christ (v. 8)—has long been debated. Origen understands demons alone, and some agree with him. Chrysostom, however, explains the former passage of rhetoricians and philosophers in positions of honor, and the latter of Pilate, Herod, and the Jewish priests and scribes (cf. Acts 13:27). Many Greek and Latin Fathers and most modern commentators follow this view. Others, while not excluding philosophers, scribes, and kings, hold that demons are primarily intended. I agree with these insofar as demons cannot be excluded. For elsewhere demons are called the rulers of this age (2 Cor 4:4; Eph 2:2; John 12:31; 14:30), are said to be destined for destruction (Heb 2:14), and are shown to have brought about Christ’s crucifixion. Even if they did not fully grasp that His death would overthrow their dominion and lead humanity to glory, nothing prevents the Apostle from including them under the title “rulers of this age.”
Thus the term must be understood in a general sense, designating all who in any way exercised dominion in this world and contributed both to the promotion of false wisdom and to Christ’s death. It is not permissible to interpret 1 Cor 2:6 of philosophers and scribes alone and 1 Cor 2:8 of demons alone; the context demands that the same rulers be understood in both places.
Therefore, the Apostle teaches that this wisdom not only has its origin from God, but was also known to Him alone even before it was revealed by Him, as he continues in verse 8: “which none of the rulers of this age has known; for if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory.”
Some refer the relative pronoun quam to the immediately preceding noun “our glory” (cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc. V. 6; Lapide; Menochius; Tirinus; Gordon; Maius; etc.; — a few non-Catholics), because in verse 9 there is also mention of this glory. This explanation, although not lacking all probability, is nevertheless rightly rejected by by far the majority of interpreters, who refer the pronoun quam to “the wisdom of God,” so that this relative clause is parallel to the preceding one (“which God predestined,” etc.). This view is rightly preferred (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Thomas Aquinas, Estius, Menochius, Bishop, etc.; — many non-Catholics), because throughout this entire passage the Apostle is treating of this wisdom.
The Apostle therefore denies that the wisdom which he proclaims among the perfect was known to any of the rulers of this age, in order to teach more clearly that it was entirely unknown; for what is unknown to those who hold rule, he assumes is also unknown to the common people. He demonstrates the ignorance of the rulers by the crucifixion of the Lord of glory; for the demons would never have urged the Jews to crucify the Lord, if they had known that “Christ by His cross would triumph over perverse and hostile powers, fasten to the wood the handwriting written against us (Col. 2:14), drive away Satan’s tyranny from us, extinguish the sin of the world, open the gates of hell against unclean spirits, and destroy the dominion of death” (Cyril). Nor would Jewish and pagan rulers ever have lent their efforts to crucifying Christ, if, instructed by this wisdom, they had recognized Him as the Incarnate Word, the very Wisdom of the Father, and therefore the author of the glory to be communicated through Him; for, as Thomas says, “since glory is naturally desirable to a rational creature, it cannot fall within the human will to destroy the author of glory.”
Finally, Christ is called the Lord of glory, not so much in order to contrast His glory with the ignominy of the cross (Chrysostom, etc.), as in order that we may recognize that the glory destined for us depends on Him alone (cf. 2 Thess. 3:16, the Lord of peace). For He not only possesses this glory as His own from eternity (John 17:5; Luke 24:26, into His glory), but also bestows it upon us (Col. 3:4; Heb. 2:10, etc.).
1 Cor 2:9 That this wisdom was truly unknown to the rulers of this age, Paul confirms by a testimony of Scripture, by which this wisdom is absolutely denied to all: “None of the rulers of this age has known it, 9. but it is as it is written: What (read: which things!) eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man, which things God has prepared for those who love Him,” that is, none of the rulers has known it; but according to the testimony of Scripture, the wisdom which God predestined for our glory has been known by no one.
Concerning this difficult text, first it is asked how it is to be connected with the preceding words. We prefer the connection indicated by the inserted words (cf. Theophylact, Justinian, Picus, Maius, etc.; — Godet, etc.), because elsewhere also Paul sometimes introduces scriptural words, as he has them in memory, in an elliptical or anacoluthic manner, so that he does not adapt them to his own construction (cf. 1 Cor 4:31; Rom. 15:3, 21). Others wish to supply from what precedes the verb loquimur (“we speak”): “But we speak, as it is written, the things which eye has not seen..., namely the things which God has prepared” (Estius, Natalis Alexander, Bishop, etc.; — Meyer, etc.). But the Apostle is not dealing with the subject matter of his preaching, but with the unknowability of his wisdom; and the prophetic words which he had before his eyes prevent us from taking the final clause (which God has prepared) as an apposition to the preceding words (which eye has not seen, etc.).
Others wish to connect the words with what follows in this way: “But, as it is written, what eye has not seen..., what God has prepared..., these things God has revealed to us by His Spirit.” In this explanation the Clementine Vulgate inclines, since it separates verse 9 from what precedes with a period, but places the two dots, by which it usually distinguishes protasis from apodosis, between verses 9 and 10. But this connection is not very suitable, since the words as it is written in no way pertain to verse 10, to which they would nevertheless necessarily be drawn if verses 9 and 10 were connected in this way; nor did Paul write: “but the things which, according to Scripture, eye has not seen..., God has revealed to us.” The construction of verse 9 also stands in the way, as we have already said, and the adversative particle (nobis autem — but to us) in the apodosis is not sufficiently explained.
Second, it is asked where these words are written. In ancient times Origen (on Matt. 21:9), Asterius, etc., and with them some modern non-Catholics (Meyer, etc.) thought they were taken from the apocryphal Apocalypse of Elijah; Chrysostom and Theodoret conjectured that they were drawn from a lost prophetic book. But St. Jerome (to Pammachius, Ep. 51.9; on Is. 64:3, etc.), rejecting these evasions, rightly pointed out that Paul took them from Isaiah 64:3, “not rendering word for word, which he by no means makes a practice of doing, but expressing the truth of the sense, which he uses to strengthen what he intended.”
The pericope to which the verse cited by St. Paul belongs is a prayer (Isa. 63:7–64:11), in which the prophet, after giving thanks for past benefits (Is 63:7–14), moved by the wretched condition of the people (Is 63:15–18), most fervently implores God to bring help again (Is 64:1–3): “From of old no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen, O God, besides You, what He does for him who waits for Him” (or according to the reading which the LXX, Chaldee, Syriac, and Vulgate had before them: “what You do for those who trust in You”). According to his custom, the Apostle rendered these words freely but faithfully, retaining the sense accurately. Since two of the prophet’s clauses are synonymous, he compressed them into two (eye has not seen nor ear heard), and added a third (nor has it entered into the heart of man), because it lay hidden in the omitted words (O God, besides You). For if no one besides God has known these things, it is manifest that they have not entered into the heart of any man, that is, have not occurred to any human mind. Indeed, the prophet’s words even say something more, which Paul will also explain in the following verses, namely that no creature whatsoever has conceived or known these things by its own powers. Finally, for the prophet’s words (for those who wait for Him or who trust in Him), he substitutes a synonymous expression (for those who love Him); for the prophet is speaking of those who await the Lord as Savior with love.
Some, in order to explain the words “has not entered into the heart of man,” say that Paul combined Isaiah 64:4 and Is 65:17 (Bisping, Lightfoot, Drummond; — many non-Catholics). But not only is there no reason to posit such a confusion or mixture of texts, but Paul could not have been referring to Is63:17, because in that place the expression ascendit in cor is used in the sense of remembering. Nor, finally, is it credible that he was referring to Psalm 33:18 (Theophylact, etc.). He had only the text of Isaiah 64:4 in mind and rendered its sense freely but faithfully.
Third, it is asked what those things are which God has prepared for those who love Him, and which no man has known. From the earliest times of the faith these words have been explained of the goods which the blessed will enjoy in heaven (e.g., St. Clement, Hom. ad Cor. 34; 2 Cor. 11 and 14; Martyrdom of Polycarp 9, etc.), and today they are often explained in this way; nor is there any doubt that they can be aptly understood of these. Yet it is in no way permissible to explain them of these alone, if one attends to the context in which they are read both in the prophet and in the Apostle. For the prophet, as is clear from the connection of his prayer with the preceding description of the messianic work (Is 63:1–6; note v. 4), is speaking of messianic salvation, which indeed includes the joys of the blessed, but also comprehends at the same time those things which God has prepared for us in order that we may attain to those joys. Paul, moreover, in speaking of the wisdom which is predestined for our glory, in the same way understands the whole economy of salvation, insofar as it is the subject matter of that special wisdom which he proclaims only among the perfect. Rightly, therefore, almost all interpreters explain these words in a broader sense. Let Theophylact speak for the Greeks: “What has God prepared for those who love Him? The knowledge of Christ and salvation through the Incarnation.” And Lyra expresses the sense of the Latins: “For those who love Him God has prepared His Son, to be possessed in the way by faith and charity, and in the homeland by clear vision and perfect enjoyment.”
1 Cor 2:10 This wisdom, although it is altogether unknown to the rulers of this age and to all men, the Apostles nevertheless can proclaim, because it has been made known to them by God through His Spirit: 10. “But to us God has revealed it through His Spirit.” With emphasis the pronoun nobis (to us) is placed at the beginning of the phrase; for it has not been revealed by God to all the faithful nor even to the perfect, but to the Apostles alone, who must proclaim it. This assertion the Apostle proves by a kind of syllogism: the Spirit of God possesses that wisdom (vv. 10–11); but the Spirit has been given by God to the Apostles precisely in order that they may know the divine gifts (v. 12); therefore.
He first proposes and proves the major premise of the argument: “For the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.” The Fathers most rightly already warn that the word ἐρευνᾷ (searches) “does not indicate ignorance, but complete knowledge” (Chrysostom); for the Spirit is not said to search “as one who investigates curiously,” but “as one who delights in contemplation” (St. Gregory Nazianzen); nor “in order to find what He does not know, but because He leaves absolutely nothing which He does not know” (Ordinary Gloss from Augustine). In a word, He searches all things in the same way in which God is said to search hearts (Rom. 8:27), “for if that is of ignorance, then this also would be likewise; but if this is of perfect knowledge, then that also is so” (Theodoret). Therefore the Ordinary Gloss wrongly proposes another explanation, which Estius does not disapprove and which some modern non-Catholics (de Wette, etc.) prefer, namely that “the Spirit of God searches in us, that is, makes us search, just as He is said to groan, cry, and ask in us”; for this explanation is entirely alien to our context. The Spirit of God Himself searches, that is, penetrates and intimately knows all things; and how far that all things extends is taught by the added words: even the deep things of God (τὰ βάθη τοῦ Θεοῦ, “the depths” or, as St. Irenaeus has it, the heights of God). Not only those things which lie, as it were, on the surface and are “clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made” (Rom. 1:20), but the inmost mysteries and counsels of the divinity, “all His power and foreknowledge,” the Spirit perceives.
Truly divine knowledge, therefore, is attributed to the Holy Spirit as a Person distinct from the Father; wherefore from these words the divinity of the Holy Spirit is rightly demonstrated, and all the more so because the Spirit knows the depths of God not as things revealed to Him from without, but as things known as His own. For this is taught by the likeness added by the Apostle: just as only the spirit of a man knows the inmost thoughts of a man (the “depths,” so to speak, of a man), so only the Spirit of God penetrates the depths of God: 11. “For who among men knows the things of a man, except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also the things of God no one has known (ἔγνωκε — has as known), except the Spirit of God.”
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment