Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Corinthians 7
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Instead of Ὅς … Ὅς , read, with Lachm. and Tisch., following the majority of the uncials, Ὁ … Ὁ . In 1Co_7:10 again, Lachm. and Rück. put ΧΩΡΊΖΕΣΘΑΙ in place of ΧΩΡΙΣΘῆΝΑΙ (with A D E F G); but, considering the weight of authority on the other side, ἈΦΙΈΝΑΙ must dissuade us from the change.—1Co_7:13. ΑὟΤΟς ] approved also by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Rück. and Tisch. The evidence against ΑὐΤΌς (Elz.) is conclusive. But this induces us to read ΑὝΤΗ in 1Co_7:12 also (with Lachm. Tisch. and Rück.).
ΑὐΤΌΝ ) Lachm. Tisch. and Rück. have ΤῸΝ ἌΝΔΡΑ , approved by Griesb. also, and on conclusive grounds. ΑὐΤΌΝ has crept in from uniformity to 1Co_7:12. Had there been a gloss, we should have found a corresponding variation of ΑὐΤΉΝ in 1Co_7:12 as well.—1Co_7:14. ἈΝΔΡΊ ] The uncials from A to G, à *, Copt. Baschm. It. Jerome, and Augustine, read ἈΔΕΛΦῷ . Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Rück. and Tisch. ἈΝΔΡΊ is an explanatory addition.—1Co_7:15. ἩΜᾶς ] Tisch. has ὙΜᾶς , but the evidence for it is weaker; and ὙΜᾶς would easily come in from 1Co_7:14.—1Co_7:17. ΚΎΡΙΟς ] Elz. and Matt. read ΘΕΌς , and, after ΚΈΚΛΗΚΕΝ : Ὁ ΚΎΡΙΟς . Against conclusive testimony; ΚΎΡΙΟς was glossed and dislodged by ΘΕΌς , and then afterwards reinserted in the wrong place. Hence in G, Boern. we have Ὁ ΚΎΡΙΟς … Ὁ ΚΎΡΙΟς Ὁ ΘΕΌς .—1Co_7:18. Instead of the second ΤΙς ἘΚΛΉΘΗ , Lachm. Tisch. and Rück. read ΚΈΚΛΕΤΑΊ ΤΙς , with A B à , min[1013], and additional support from D* F and G, which have τις κέκλ . The Recept[1014] is a mechanical repetition from the first clause of the verse.—1Co_7:28. ΓΉΜῌς ] B à have ΓΑΜΉΣῌς ; and, since in A we have ΓΑΜΉΣῌ , and in D E F G ΛΆΒῌς ΓΥΝΑῖΚΑ , which is plainly a gloss, the evidence preponderates in favour of ΓΑΜΉΣῌς (Lachm. Tisch.); ΓΉΜῌς arose out of what follows.—1Co_7:29.[1015] After ἀδελφοί Elz. has ὍΤΙ , against A B K L à , min[1016] Baschm. Syr. p[1017] Vulg. Eus. Method. Basil, Theodoret, Hierat. al[1018] An exegetical addition.
ΤῸ ΛΟΙΠΌΝ ἘΣΤΙΝ ] A B à , min[1019] Copt. Syr. p[1020] Arm. Slav. Eus. Ephr. Basil, Cyr. have ἘΣΤΙ ΤῸ ΛΟΙΠΌΝ . Now, seeing that D* has simply ἘΣΤΙ ΛΟΙΠΌΝ , and F G 67** Boern. Vulg. Method. Tert. Jerome, Ambrosiast. al[1021] have ἘΣΤΊ , ΛΟΙΠΌΝ ἘΣΤΙΝ , the reading of A, etc., is best accredited. That in the Received text originated in the wish to indicate the fact that ΤῸ ΛΟΙΠΌΝ was regarded as belonging to what had gone before,—a connection which is expressly set forth in several codd[1022] vss[1023] and Fathers (see Tisch. and Reiche). As to whether a comma should be placed between ἘΣΤΊΝ and ΤῸ ΛΟΙΠΌΝ , which is done by Lachm. Tisch. Rück. and Scholz, see the exegetical remarks on the verse.—1Co_7:31. Τῷ ΚΌΣΜῼ ΤΟΎΤῼ ] Lachm. Tisch. and Rück. read ΤῸΝ ΚΌΣΜΟΝ , with A B à , also D* F G 17, which, however, add ΤΟῦΤΟΝ . The dative was a correction to bring it into accordance with the common usage; ΤΟῦΤΟΝ ( ΤΟΎΤῼ ) again an addition from what follows.—1Co_7:32-34. ἈΡΈΣΕΙ ] Lachm. and Rück. have ἈΡΈΣῌ , with A B D E F G à 21 46, Eus. al[1024] But it was very natural that, in place of the future (K L, almost all the min[1025] Clem. Or. Meth. Ath. Epiph. and many others), the more usual subjunctive should creep into the text.—1Co_7:34.[1026] μεμέρισται κ . τ . λ [1027]] ΚΑῚ ΜΕΜΈΡΙΣΤΑΙ ] occurs in A B D* à , min[1028] Syr. p[1029] Copt. Vulg. Cyr. Jerome, and many other Fathers, and is joined to what precedes it by most of the codd[1030] Copt. Vulg. Cyr. Jerome (who expressly states that this connection is according to the original), Pel. Bede, al[1031] On the other hand, it is construed with what follows by Syr[1032] Arr. Arm. It. Chrys. Theodoret, Basil, Oecum. Theophylact, Tert. Ambr. Aug. Sedul. and Latin codices in Jerome. The καί after μεμέρ ., which is wanting in Elz., is conclusively attested by A B D*** F G K L à , min[1033] Aeth. Vulg. It. Chrys. al[1034] Going on with the verse, we find ἡ ἄγαμος after γυνή in A B à , some min[1035] Vulg. and several Fathers; while, on the other hand, there is no ἡ ἄγαμος after παρθένος in Vulg. Jerome, Aug. Euseb. al[1036] We have the choice left us, therefore, between the following two readings (and modes of connecting the words): (1) [ καί ] μεμέρισται καὶ ἡ γυνὴ καὶ ἡ παρθένος · ἡ ἄγαμος μεριμνᾷ κ . τ . λ [1037], and (2) ΚΑῚ ΜΕΜΈΡΙΣΤΑΙ . ΚΑῚ Ἡ ΓΥΝῊ Ἡ ἌΓΑΜΟς ΚΑῚ Ἡ ΠΑΡΘΈΝΟς Ἡ ἌΓΑΜΟς ΜΕΡΙΜΝᾷ Κ . Τ . Λ [1038] The latter is adopted by Lachm. and Rück.; but is not to be preferred, because it offers no difficulty whatever, and, consequently, no occasion for any change. The former, on the contrary (found in D*** F G K L, and many min[1039] It. Slav. Chrys. Theodoret, Dam.), presented a stone of stumbling in the μεμέρισται , which was either not understood at all, or misunderstood. Where not understood, it was left out altogether (so even Cyprian: “uxori. Sic et mulier et virgo innupta cogitat,” etc.); where misunderstood (that μερίζεσθαι must mean curis distrahi, see Jerome, adv. Jovin. i. 7), it was connected with the preceding clause by καί (which appears, therefore, to be spurious). This made γυνή be taken as mulier vidua (Aeth.); and hence ἡ ἄγαμος was either pushed forward (Vulg.), or else left in connection with παρθένος , and the same word added to γυνή as well (A B à , Lachm.). Scholz, too, has the words as in our reading,[1040] but spoils it by his quite wrong and abrupt method of punctuation: τῇ γυναικί · μεμέρισται . Καὶ ἡ γυνὴ καὶ ἡ παρθένος ἡ ἄγαμος μεριμνᾷ κ . τ . λ [1041]—1Co_7:34. ΤᾺ ΤΟῦ ΚΌΣΜΟΥ ] omitted in B alone, which, however, is approved of by Buttmann (Studien u. Krit. 1860, p. 370).—1Co_7:37. ἐδραῖος · ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ] Lachm. reads ἘΝ Τῇ ΚΑΡΔ . ΑὐΤΟῦ ἙΔΡΑῖΟς , which has conclusive evidence in its favour; on the other hand, there is no sufficient ground for omitting ἙΔΡ . (as Griesb. does) or ΑὐΤΟῦ (deleted by Tisch.). As regards ἙΔΡΑῖΟς in particular, which is omitted only by F G, It. Aeth., it was very likely to be left out as being unessential, so far as the sense was concerned, after ἝΣΤΗΚΕΝ .
ΑὐΤΟῦ ΤΟῦ ] is deleted by Lachm. Rück. and Tisch. in accordance with A B à . In place of it, Tisch., following the same authorities, has ἘΝ Τῇ ἸΔΊᾼ ΚΑΡΔΊᾼ . The evidence, however, for ΑὐΤΟῦ ΤΟῦ (the uncials D E F G K L) is too weighty and uniform, while ΤΟῦ again was in appearance so cumbrous and superfluous, and such a natural occasion for writing ἸΔΊᾼ instead of ΑὐΤΟῦ presented itself in the preceding ἸΔΊΟΥ ΘΕΛΉΜ ., that our conclusion is to retain the Recept[1042].
Instead of ποιεῖ , A B à 6 17 37, Copt. have ποιήσει (as also where it occurs for the second time in 1Co_7:38), which is adopted by Lachm. and Rück. (B 6 17 37 have ποιήσει also the first time in 1Co_7:38.) But in default of internal reasons for a change, these witnesses, having no support from the Fathers, and next to none from the vss[1043], are too weak to warrant it.—1Co_7:38. ὁ ἐκγαμίζων ] Lachm. and Rück. have ὁ γαμίζων τὴν παρθένον ἑαυτοῦ . Now it is true that γαμίζων occurs in A B D E à 17 23 31 46, Clem. Method. Basil., and τὴν παρθ . ἑαυτ . (or τ . ἑαυτ . παρθ ., so Rück.) in much the same codices and Syr[1044] Erp. Arm. Baschm. Aeth. Vulg. Clar. Germ. Clem. Basil. al[1045] But the whole reading is manifestly of the nature of a gloss, ἐκγαμίζων being explained sometimes by γαμίζων τὴν παρθ . ἑαυτ ., sometimes by the addition to it of τὴν παρθ . ἑαυτ . The latter phrase crept into the text beside ἐκγαμ ., the former in place of it.
Instead of ὁ δέ read καὶ ὁ ; so Griesb. Lachm. Schulz, Rück. Tisch., upon conclusive evidence. The antithesis gave rise to the ὁ δέ .—1Co_7:39. After δέδεται Elz. has νόμῳ , against A B D* Fa[1046] à **, min[1047] with many vss[1048] and Fathers. Taken from Rom_7:2, although Reiche doubts this.
ἐὰν δέ ] Tisch. has ἐὰν δὲ καί , upon insufficient evidence; the καί might easily come in through writing the next syllable twice over, or by a clerical error such as κεκοιμηθη (so F G).
[1012] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1013] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1014] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).
[1015] Respecting ver. 29, see Reiche, Comment. crit. 1. p. 178 ff.
[1016] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1017] yr. p. Philoxenian Syriac.
[1018] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[1019] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1020] yr. p. Philoxenian Syriac.
[1021] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[1022] odd. codices or manuscripts. The uncial manuscripts are denoted by the usual letters, the Sinaitic by à .
[1023] ss. vss. = versions.
[1024] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[1025] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1026] Respecting ver. 34, see Reiche, Comment. crit. I. p. 184 ff.
[1027] . τ . λ . καὶ τὰ λοιπά .
[1028] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1029] yr. p. Philoxenian Syriac.
[1030] odd. codices or manuscripts. The uncial manuscripts are denoted by the usual letters, the Sinaitic by à .
[1031] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[1032] yr. Peschito Syriac
[1033] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1034] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[1035] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1036] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[1037] . τ . λ . καὶ τὰ λοιπά .
[1038] . τ . λ . καὶ τὰ λοιπά .
[1039] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1040] It is defended also by Reiche and retained by Tisch. Elz. varies from it only in omitting the καί after μεμέρισται , which was justly reinserted by Bengel.
[1041] . τ . λ . καὶ τὰ λοιπά .
[1042] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).
[1043] ss. vss. = versions.
[1044] yr. Peschito Syriac
[1045] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[1046] Fragment of a Codex of the 7th century. See Tisch. Monum. sacr. ined. p. 460.
[1047] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1048] ss. vss. = versions.
CONTENTS.
Instructions regarding marriage, matrimonial intercourse, and divorce (1Co_7:1-17); then an excursus upon the theme that the reception of Christianity ought not to alter the outward relations of life (1Co_7:17-24); lastly, about virgins—as to how far celibacy in general is advisable for both sexes (1Co_7:25-34), and whether a father does better to let his daughter remain single, or give her away in marriage (1Co_7:35-38). The same advice, to remain unmarried, is given to widows (1Co_7:39 f.). Comp on this chapter, Harless, die Ehescheidungsfrage, 1861.