3. Spiritual discernment (2:14–16)
C. A revealed message (2:6–16)
1. The gospel is not human wisdom (2:6–9)
Up to this point Paul has been insisting that the gospel owes nothing to human wisdom. Both the message and the messengers were despised by this world’s ‘wise’ and ‘great’ ones. Now he emphasizes the truth that the gospel embodies true wisdom, the wisdom of God. Héring and others think that Paul is here contrasting simple Christians, who know the story of the cross, with the more ‘mature’ who go on to profound wisdom. But his words do not bear this out. He is developing the thought that the divine wisdom which brought about Christ’s saving act in the cross is the real wisdom, and further, that this wisdom is in total opposition to the worldly wisdom so beloved in Corinth.
6. However (de) introduces a contrast. Paul is rejecting ‘men’s wisdom’, but not all wisdom. Actually wisdom comes first in the Greek with emphasis: ‘Wisdom we speak’—even if the world does not recognize it! (The Greek has nothing corresponding to NIV’s a message of.) The plural we, coming after two emphatic ‘I’s’ as it does (vv. 1, 3), is significant. It is not to be taken as equivalent to ‘I’ (as NEB), but it links Paul with other Christian teachers in a common understanding and proclamation of wisdom. They speak this wisdom among the mature (teleioi, which means those who have reached their end or aim, telos). Paul is possibly indulging in a little gentle irony at the expense of the Corinthians with their exalted estimate of their own spiritual state. More probably he is perfectly serious. Those who have welcomed the message of the cross are mature, whereas the worldly-minded who reject it are not. Conzelmann holds that Paul has in mind ‘a higher class of believer’ and that he is referring to a superior wisdom which only the more mature can receive. But Paul’s contrast is rather between those who receive God’s wisdom (the message of the cross) and those who do not (cf. Bornkamm, TDNT, iv, p. 819). Later Paul will face the fact that there are ‘mere infants in Christ’ (3:1), but that is not his concern at this point. And when he comes to it he will criticize the ‘infants’ for being deficient in love, not knowledge (cf. Bruce). The fact is that the New Testament writers do not envisage ‘grades’ of Christians. All believers should go on to maturity (Heb. 6:1). Some of the later Gnostics classified people into permanent groups according to their spiritual potential. They held that some were ‘perfect’, while others could never attain that standing. Paul is not making this kind of distinction. He is contrasting Christians (who have accepted the wisdom of the cross) with outsiders (who have not). It is mature to accept God’s wise provision, even if the world sees it as folly.
With unwearied persistence the apostle points out that the wisdom of which he speaks is not the wisdom of this age. He has been stressing this for some time and he now adds or of the rulers of this age. In antiquity Origen took this to refer to the demonic powers behind world rulers, an interpretation which Chrysostom rejected, and this difference of opinion has persisted through the centuries. Among modern commentators Conzelmann, for example, sees a reference to the demons, while Orr and Walther think of earthly rulers. The ‘demonic’ view sees Christ as engaged in a gigantic struggle with evil forces of the unseen world, a view which is undoubtedly to be found in Paul’s writings (e.g. Rom. 8:38–39; Col. 2:15; cf. 2 Cor. 4:4). But it may be doubted whether this is his meaning here. Three points are especially important. One is that throughout this whole passage the contrast is between the wisdom of God shown in the gospel and the wisdom of this world. To introduce now the thought of the wisdom of demonic powers is to bring in an extraneous concept, and one that is out of harmony with v. 9, which clearly refers to humans. Paul could scarcely have expected his readers to grasp this without one word of explanation. A second is that it was the rulers of this age who are said to have crucified Christ and this same word rulers, archontes, is repeatedly used of the Jewish and Roman leaders (Acts 3:17; 4:5, 8, 26; Rom. 13:3, etc.). The third is that it is explicitly said that they carried out the crucifixion in ignorance (Acts 3:17; 13:27; cf. John 16:3), but, by contrast, the demons are often said to have known who Jesus was when people did not (Mark 1:24, 34, etc.). Paul habitually ascribes power to the demonic forces, but not ignorance. The very concept of a struggle between demonic forces and the power of God implies that the demons knew what they were up against. Paul’s use of this age probably points to the transitory nature of the office of rulers, over against the truth of the gospel, which is permanent. This transitoriness is also in mind in the concluding who are coming to nothing (the verb is katargeō; see on 1:28). The rulers are being rendered completely ineffective; their vaunted power and wisdom are made null and void.
7. No is the strong adversative alla. The wisdom we speak is certainly not ‘the wisdom of this age’; it is God’s wisdom, and the word God is in an emphatic position. Secret translates en mystēriō, ‘in a mystery’, where ‘mystery’ does not mean a puzzle we find difficult to solve. It means a secret we are wholly unable to penetrate, but which God has now revealed: ‘God’s pre-temporal counsel which is hidden from the world but revealed to the spiritual’ (Bornkamm, TDNT, iv, p. 820). At one and the same time it points to the impossibility of our knowing God’s secret, and to the love of God which makes that secret known to us. The wisdom has been hidden (the perfect participle denotes a continuing state). Where unbelievers are concerned it remains hidden; they are still in the dark about it. It is revealed to believers, but it is not a matter of common knowledge among members of the human family.
Paul proceeds to stress the truth that the gospel is no afterthought. It was planned in the mind of God before time began (cf. Eph. 3:2–12). Destined translates the verb proorizō, which means ‘to foreordain’. It stresses the plan of God and the sovereignty of God. For our glory adds the thoughts of the tenderness of God and of our supernatural destiny (cf. Rom. 8:18). Before time began God was concerned for our well-being; he planned the gospel that would bring us into glory.
8. God’s secret was not known by any way other than revelation. For all their eminence the rulers of this age did not know it, as is shown by the fact that they crucified Jesus (cf. Acts 3:17; 4:25–28, and Jesus’ words, ‘they do not know what they are doing’, Luke 23:34). Had they really understood who Jesus was and the consequent enormity of rejecting him, they would never have done what they did. The Lord of glory (‘the Lord whose essential attribute is glory’, Ellicott) is an outstanding and unusual title, applied to Christ only here (though Jas 2:1 is similar). The epithet of glory is applied to the Father (Acts 7:2; Eph. 1:17), and in the apocryphal Book of Enoch the expression the Lord of glory is used of God several times (22:14; 25:3; 27:3–4; 63:2; 75:3). More than one scholar has thought that this is the loftiest title Paul ever applied to Christ. It stands fitly alongside the application to him of words originally referring to Yahweh (1:31). Both show that Paul habitually assigned to Christ the highest place of all.
9. It is difficult to know the source of this quotation. The formula as it is written (kathōs gegraptai) is one Paul uses when citing Scripture, but there is no passage in the Old Testament that runs exactly like this. Perhaps the nearest is Isaiah 64:4, though some see parts of Psalm 31:20; Isaiah 52:15; 65:17 (note that ‘mind’ here is ‘heart’ in LXX). From the time of Origen some have thought that Paul was quoting from The Apocalypse of Elias, an apocryphal book now lost, or from The Ascension of Isaiah, but it is far from certain that either was in existence at the time (cf. TDNT, iii, pp. 988–989; v, p. 557). Another view is that it is a saying of Jesus not recorded in our Gospels. That there were such sayings is indisputable (cf. Acts 20:35), but whether Paul would cite them in this way is another matter. Where was this one written? On the whole it seems best to think of this as a rather free citation of Isaiah 64:4, with reminiscences of other scriptural passages.
Mind translates kardia, ‘heart’ (so AV). But ‘heart’ does not stand for the emotions as with us; among the Greeks the seat of the emotions was rather the intestines (cf. ‘bowels of compassion’), while thought was located in the midriff, the diaphragm. ‘Heart’ stood for the whole of the inner life, including thought and will as well as the emotions, though sometimes it leans to one or another of these. Here the mind is perhaps most in view (TDNT, iii, p. 612 classes this passage under ‘the seat of understanding, the source of thought and reflection’). Paul is saying that there is no method of apprehension open to us (eyes, ears, or understanding) which can give any idea of the wonderful things that God has made ready for those who love him (cf. Rom. 8:28). ‘Not gnōsis but love is the touchstone of Christian maturity and spirituality’ (Barrett). The verb has prepared reinforces the earlier thought that God is working out his plan (v. 7). The glories that come to believers are not haphazard, but are in accordance with God’s plan from of old.
2. Words ‘taught by the Spirit’ (2:10–13)
Paul brings out the divine origin of the message by stressing the role of the Holy Spirit.
10. To us comes first in the Greek with emphasis; it is not the learned philosophers but the humble Christians to whom God’s truth has been revealed. That it is revealed takes away all suggestion of superiority. There can be no feeling of pride when it is clear that all is of God. Believers can claim no special skill or insight, only that God has revealed truth to them.
Paul proceeds to emphasize the activity of the Spirit. He has mentioned him only once up till now, but in vv. 10–14 he speaks of him six times. It is the Spirit who made the revelation. And the Spirit searches all things, which means, not that he conducts searches with a view to obtaining information, but that he penetrates all things. There is nothing beyond his knowledge. In particular Paul specifies the deep things of God. Deep is often used of the mighty depths of the sea, and thus comes to mean the ‘unfathomable’. It is impossible for any creature to know the innermost depths of the divine counsel, ‘the depths of God’. But they are known to the Spirit, the Spirit who has revealed the truths of which Paul speaks.
11. The Spirit’s insight into the mind of God is brought out by an analogy from the nature of man. Nobody can really know what is going on in a man’s mind, nobody but the man’s own spirit. From outside we can but guess. But the spirit of the man does not guess. He knows. In the same way, reasons Paul, no-one outside God can know what takes place within God, nobody but the Spirit of God. The Spirit knows God from the inside. This ascribes full deity to the Spirit. And it shows that the revelation of which Paul has been speaking is authentic. Because the Spirit who reveals is truly God, what he reveals is the truth of God.
12. Once again an emphatic we contrasts Christians with ‘wise’ heathen. Whatever be the case with others, we are led by God’s Spirit. Some understand the spirit of the world to mean Satan, and this would give an excellent sense. However, Satan does not seem to be referred to in just this way (though ‘the prince of this world’, John 12:31, comes near to it, and cf. Eph. 2:2). Further, it goes beyond what is required by the context. Throughout this passage Paul is opposing a ‘wisdom’ that is not satanic but human. It seems that we should accept some such meaning as ‘the spirit of human wisdom’, ‘the temper of this world’ (Lenski, ‘It is what makes the world “world” ’). Believers have not received the spirit of worldly wisdom. In passing we notice that the word for world here is kosmos, ‘the ordered universe’, not aiōn, ‘age’ (as in vv. 7–8), which means the world in its temporal aspect.
We who are Christ’s have received the Spirit who is from God (cf. Gal. 3:2), and this brings the assurance that we have real knowledge. The Christian’s certainty is a certainty of faith, but that does not make it any the less a certainty. He has understanding of what God has freely given us.
13. And what we receive we pass on; the revealed truths are spoken by believers to others. This is not done in words taught us by human wisdom; the worldly-wise way is not the way to commend the truth of God. Rather, we teach in words taught by the Spirit. The Spirit’s activity extends to providing the actual words used, and is not confined to the supplying of general ideas (cf. Mark 13:11). As Moule says, the expression ‘is a very bold but quite unambiguous use of the Subjective Genitive’ (IBNTG, p. 40); the Spirit teaches the words.
This probably gives us the clue to the difficult expression that follows. It is fairly clear that the participle synkrinontes should be rendered ‘combining’. It can mean ‘comparing’ (2 Cor. 10:12), but this is not usual and should be adopted only if the context plainly indicates it, which is not the case here. A surprising number prefer ‘interpreting’ or the like (e.g. RSV, NEB, Moffatt), but it would seem without sufficient reason. This meaning is found only in LXX, and there only of interpreting dreams. In each case the context makes this plain. It cannot be said to be a common meaning of the verb. We should retain the usual meaning, ‘combining’.
We are to combine ‘spiritual things with spiritual (pneumatikois pneumatika)’. There is no question about ‘spiritual things’ (NIV, spiritual truths), for pneumatika is neuter. But pneumatikois might be neuter or masculine. If neuter it means ‘combining spiritual things with spiritual things’, which probably signifies linking spiritual truths to spiritual words. If it is masculine we get combining spiritual truths with either ‘spiritual men’ or ‘spiritual words’ (since ‘word’ is masculine in the Greek). There seems no good reason for accepting a reference to men, so in one way or another Paul is saying that Christians combine ‘spiritual things’ with ‘spiritual words’. They use words taught by the Spirit.
3. Spiritual discernment (2:14–16)
The presence of the Spirit makes all the difference. Without that, people lack discernment; with it they have the root of the matter within them.
14. The man without the Spirit (‘the natural man’, AV) has his limitations. Psychikos, ‘natural’, refers to the animal life. There is nothing inherently evil about it; it does not mean ‘sinful’. But it does point to an absence of spiritual discernment, to the man whose horizon is bounded by this life (BAGD, ‘one who lives on the purely material plane, without being touched by the Spirit of God’). It is the worldly-wise man again, the one who has been so much in Paul’s thoughts throughout this passage. This man does not accept the things of the Spirit. The verb (dechomai) has an air of welcome about it; it is the usual word for the reception of a guest. But ‘the natural man’ does not welcome the things of the Spirit; he refuses them, he rejects them. He is not equipped to discern the activities of God’s Spirit; to him they are no more than foolishness (cf. 1:18, 21, 23). Paul goes so far as to say that it is quite impossible for him to understand them (cf. John 8:47). The reason is that they are spiritually discerned. The verb, anakrinō (ten times in 1 Corinthians, nowhere else in Paul) ‘is used of judicial investigation, especially prior to the hearing proper’ (TDNT, iii, p. 943; the corresponding noun is used of such a preliminary hearing in Acts 25:26). It comes to mean ‘to scrutinize’, ‘to examine’, and so ‘to judge of,’ ‘to estimate’. It may be that the use of a verb proper to a preliminary examination is by way of reminding us that all human verdicts are no more than preliminary. It is God who gives the final verdict. Anyone whose equipment is only of this world, who has not received the Holy Spirit, has no ability to make an estimate of things spiritual. ‘The unspiritual are out of court as religious critics; they are deaf men judging music’ (Findlay).
15. By contrast the spiritual man can form a judgment on all things. Paul is not, of course, referring to someone with a different natural endowment from the one he has just been considering. It is not a question of natural endowment, but of the working of the Spirit of God within him. When the Spirit enters the life everything is changed and one new thing that appears is the ability to make a right judgment. This does not mean that the man has acquired greatness; it means that the Spirit of God is guiding him. He has the point of reference within himself and is thus able to make judgments about all things. The force of all should not be overlooked. The spiritual principle is the basis of judgment on what we call the secular as well as the sacred.
Not subject to any man’s judgment is to be taken in the sense ‘any natural man’. It is clear from the whole tenor of Paul’s writings that he did not hold that men in whom was the Spirit of God could not be called upon to account for their actions (cf. 14:29). Much of this epistle is a criticism, if a loving and spiritual criticism, of spiritual men. His point is that the spiritual man cannot be judged by the natural man for precisely the same reason that he himself can judge all things. He has the Spirit of God within him and the natural man has not. This makes him an enigma to the natural man. What does the natural man know of spiritual things? Because he cannot know spiritual things (v. 14), he cannot judge spiritual people.
16. This impossibility is shown by a question quoted from Isaiah 40:13. Paul has already spoken of the impossibility of knowing ‘the things of God’ (v. 11). Then his concern was to show that the Spirit does indeed have complete knowledge of ‘the depths of God’, and that is relevant here. As none but the Spirit knows these depths it is clearly impossible for the natural man to have knowledge of the person in whom is the Spirit, and who therefore, in a sense, shares in the divine (cf. 2 Pet. 1:4). It is because of this that Paul can make the bold assertion that we (the pronoun is emphatic) have the mind of Christ. He does not mean that every Christian can understand all Christ’s thoughts. He means that the indwelling Spirit reveals Christ. The spiritual person accordingly does not see things from the viewpoint of the worldly. He sees them from the viewpoint of Christ.
Notice that the question in Isaiah 40:13 refers to the mind of Yahweh. But Paul moves easily to the mind of Christ, so closely does he associate the two.