6. See, e.g., Craig, 18; Allo, 4.
The original NIV followed 
B eth Ephraim here in omitting μου. But this is a case where accidental omission is far more likely than a nearly universal addition on the part of many early scribes, esp. since the wording does not naturally lend itself to the addition of “my”; cf. Metzger, 478. Although expressed as a possessive, Paul’s intent would be “the God I serve.”
Several MSS, incl. B* F G 81 1175, read θεοῦ, probably an assimilation to the wording of 2:1 (q.v.).
The Western MSS D F G read παρουσίᾳ instead of ἡμέρᾳ.
The word Χριστοῦ is not found in P46 B. This is probably a very early accidental omission (based on the juxtaposition and abbreviation of ΙΥ ΧΥ). For a fuller discussion see Zuntz, 184, who tends to favor the shorter text; cf. Metzger (479), who gave the present text a C rating.
See P. Schubert, Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings (Berlin, 1939); and now esp. O’Brien, 107–37.
See, e.g., Craig, 18; Allo, 4.
Cf. the observation of O’Brien, 114: “The Corinthians had forgotten that what they had received were ‘gifts’ (note the biting words of 4:7, ‘What have you that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift?’), sovereignly distributed by the Holy Spirit (12:4–11, esp. v. 11) and that their purpose was ‘for the common good’ (12:7), or that the church might be edified (14:5).”
Cf. Lightfoot, 148: “St Paul here gives thanks for their use: he afterward condemns their abuse.”
See Collins, 58.
See 1 Thess. 1:2; 2:13; 2 Thess. 1:3; 2:13; Rom. 1:8; Col. 1:3; Phil. 1:3; Phlm. 4. Thanksgiving becomes doxology in 2 Corinthians and Ephesians. All of this is conspicuously absent from Galatians.
Cf., e.g., Rom. 12:6, where believers are given differing charismata, according to the charis given to them.
God is the implied subject of all the passive verbs in this paragraph.
The ὅτι that joins this clause to v. 4 is probably explicative, indicating that what follows modifies v. 4 by spelling out in detail the meaning of the phrase “because of the grace of God given you in Christ Jesus.” It could therefore also be translated “in that.” Thus, “I always thank God . . . because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus, in that in everything you have been enriched in him.” Many (e.g., BDAG, Conzelmann, 25 n. 3) take the ὅτι to go with the verb εὐχαριστῶ (either “I thank God . . . because” or “I thank God . . . that”), but the structure of the sentence as a whole and the context seem to rule in favor of an explicative ὅτι here.
Gk. ἐν παντί; for this usage see BDAG 2aβ.
See, among others, Héring, 3; Craig, 19; O-W, 144.
“In him” refers back to “in Christ Jesus” in v. 4, and is similar in usage to v. 2: “by what God has done in Christ Jesus.”
This is true esp. of Romans, Colossians, Ephesians, and Philippians. Thus he has “riches of grace,” “riches of kindness,” “riches in glory,” etc.
With abstract nouns πᾶς usually has the sense of “every kind of.” See BDAG 5. Cf. Barrett, 36–37, and O’Brien, 117.
Lightfoot, 147, followed by O’Brien, 118, lists four possibilities: (1) that λόγος refers to the lower, γνῶσις to the higher knowledge (which they rightly dismiss as impossible); (2) that λόγος refers to the gift of tongues, γνῶσις to prophecy (which is also to be dismissed as too narrow a view); (3) that λόγος refers to the gospel which came to them, and γνῶσις to their hearty acceptance of it (which is discredited by the whole context of 1 Corinthians); and (4) the position they prefer, that λόγος refers to the outward expression, γνῶσις to the inward conviction and apprehension of the gospel. But this latter also seems to miss the point in the context of 1 Corinthians. Other options have been offered: Zuntz, 101, suggests that one refers to “rational” and the other to “ecstatic” gifts, which again seems to miss the actual data of 1 Corinthians. K. Grayston suggests, even less convincingly, that λόγος refers to those who were insisting on following the remembered words of Jesus in a legalistic way (they had traded one form of law for another), while γνῶσις refers to those who had “an awareness of the cosmic relationships between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Christian,” so that they were, through Christ, absolved from “the conventional rules” (“Not with a Rod,” ExpT 88 [1976], 13–16). The original NIV’s rendering of λόγος here by the verbal “speaking” seems quite to have missed the point.
The word λόγος occurs 26 times in 1 and 2 Corinthians, 38 in the other eight letters (plus 20 in the Pastorals). The word γνῶσις occurs 16 times in 1 and 2 Corinthians, 7 in the other letters (including the Pastorals).
See 8:1 for a further discussion of this word.
Gk. καθώς. Cf. 1 Thess. 1:5; Phil. 1:7.
Evidence of this difficulty can be found in the various English translations: the NRSV and ESV set it off with dashes, the REB puts it in parentheses, and the NAB treats it as a dative: “testimony to Christ.”
O’Brien, 120.
This position was also taken by Godet, 53–54, and Lightfoot, 148. Cf. the translation by Moffatt: “all of which verifies the testimony we bore to Christ when we were with you.”
The verb βεβαιόω (“confirmed”), which ordinarily had the meaning of “make firm” or “strengthen,” became a technical term in the Hellenistic period for guaranteeing legal contracts (see the discussion in A. Deissmann, Biblical Studies [ET, Edinburgh, 1901], 101–5; cf. MM, 108). Some have stressed the legal aspect here in a more literal sense (esp. H. Schlier, TDNT 1:600–603), but that is to lose the richness of the metaphor itself, which is used again by Paul in 2 Cor. 1:21 to speak of the certainty of their existence together in Christ.
The NIV properly understands the genitive “the testimony of Christ” to be objective here; that is, Christ is the “object,” not the “subject,” of the verbal idea in the word “testimony” (cf. GNB, NAB, NASB, NRSV).
G. W. MacRae has made the tentative suggestion that this verse should be translated, “since the testimony to Christ has grown strong among you to the point that you lack no spiritual gift” (see “A Note on 1 Corinthians 1:4–9,” in Eretz-Israel, vol. 16 [Orlinsky Festschrift] [Jerusalem, 1982], 171–75). Although it is an intriguing suggestion, MacRae comes to it through a desire to make the verb βεβαιόω mean nearly the same thing in both vv. 6 and 8. But as is noted in v. 8, that is not necessary, nor does it make the best sense of Paul’s own play on words here.
For this essential framework to Paul’s theology, see the introduction, .
Even though in classical Greek ὥστε with the infinitive ordinarily signaled a potential, rather than actual, result (which took the indicative), this distinction had broken down considerably in the late Hellenistic period. It was common among the older commentaries (e.g., Lightfoot, Findlay, R-P) to keep this distinction, but both common usage and the context here demand that the result had already been actualized in Corinth.
The NRSV reflects a view that sees v. 6 as parenthetical and v. 7 therefore as modifying v. 5. Conzelmann, 27, argues that v. 7 modifies both vv. 5 and 6. Neither of these seems to make as much sense of the syntax nor of the argument as the position adopted here.
Gk. ἐν μηδενὶ χαρίσματι (= you are lacking in no gracious gift), which later in the letter (chaps. 12–14) is a word used in conjunction with the Spirit’s giftings.
See, e.g., Lightfoot, 148; Barrett, 38; and O’Brien, 123–24.
So Conzelmann, 27.
On this word see on 12:4; cf. the discussion in Dunn, Jesus, 205–7.
As, e.g., in Rom. 5:15–16 and 6:23. This is the view of a large number of commentators (e.g., Calvin, 22; O’Brien, 124).
Indeed, this is the first reference, of many more to come, to the work of the Holy Spirit in this community of faith.
Thus O’Brien, 124, does not seem quite precise when he speaks of “the customary eschatological climax of the introductory thanksgivings.” This perspective is the result of analyzing the thanksgiving periods formally without giving chronology its due. Eschatology is missing in 1 Thessalonians, Romans, and Philemon.
Paul uses the verb ἀπεκδέχομαι only in eschatological contexts of looking forward to the End (Gal. 5:5; Rom. 8:19, 23, 25; Phil. 3:20); it carries the sense of “eager anticipation,” which makes the simple “wait for” of the NRSV and ESV much too bland.
G. P. Wiles has suggested that “this is a possible wish-prayer, using the future indicative to express a wish: ‘May he sustain you to the end’ ” (Paul’s Intercessory Prayers [SNTSMS 24; Cambridge, 1974], 35, see also 97–101). But to do so he must not only neglect the clear grammar of the sentence but also disallow that the thanksgiving is genuine—hence the need to conclude with prayer, that these things shall really be so.
Gk. στηρίζω; see 1 Thess. 3:2, 13; 2 Thess. 2:17; 3:3; Rom. 1:11; 16:25.
A καί is unfortunately left out of the NIV. It means “also” here and thus refers back to the former ἐβεβαιώθη in v. 6.
The phrase ἕως τέλους could possibly mean “completely” here. Some (e.g., Grosheide, 31; Barrett, 39; O’Brien, 129) think it has a twofold sense here: “completely to the end.” Perhaps so, but the primary reference is temporal, not one of degrees.
Gk. ἀνέγκλητος, found also in a “last judgment” passage in Col. 1:22 (cf. 1 Tim. 3:10; Tit. 1:6,7). In other contexts Paul uses either ἄμεμπτος or ἄμωμος, words that carry more of the moral or religious sense.
Gk. relative pronoun ὅς.
Almost all of the earlier commentaries go this way. Godet, e.g., says: “The pron. . . . refers of course to the person of Jesus Christ” (58). Among more recent commentaries that also adopt this position, see Barrett, 39, and Ruef, 6. Most recent commentaries take the position argued for here.
For this expression in Paul see 10:13; 2 Cor. 1:18; cf. 1 Thess. 5:24; 2 Thess. 3:3.
W. C. van Unnik suggests that these words are reminiscent of the Haftarah in the synagogue, which speaks of “the faithful God who speaks and acts” (“Reisepläne und Amen-Sagen. Zusammenhang und Gedankfolge in 1 Korinther 1:15–24,” in Studia Paulina in honorem J. de Zwaan [Haarlem, 1953], 221). It has also been suggested, both because of the language and because of the place of this exclamation at the end of the thanksgiving period, that the whole sentence is liturgical in its form and content (see, e.g., J. T. Sanders, “The Transition from Opening Epistolary Thanksgiving to Body in the Letters of the Pauline Corpus,” JBL 81 [1962], 361–62). The liturgical character of the language is perhaps possible, but in its present form the whole has been so adapted to the present context that any discovery of prior expressions is not particularly useful for finding its meaning here (cf. O’Brien, 131). For this kind of “pan-liturgism” see also on 16:20–24.
The Greek text here has the unusual expression, totally lost in the NIV, that it is God through whom (δι’ οὗ) they were called, rather than by whom (ὑφ’ οὗ). Ordinarily, one expects God the Father to be the primary cause and the Son to be the agent of mediation. Nonetheless, Paul can speak of God as the one “from whom, through whom, and unto whom are all things” (Rom. 11:36). Here the reason for God himself serving as agent is that the purpose of the call is expressed in terms of the Son.
On the OT background of “call” see L. Coenen, NIDNTT 1:272–73. In Paul the one who “calls” is always God the Father.
On the use of the term “Son of God” in Paul, as well as a discussion of its origins in early Christianity, see M. Hengel, The Son of God (ET, Philadelphia, 1976). In 1 Corinthians it appears only here and in 15:28. These two texts demonstrate that Hengel is basically correct, “that for Paul the soteriological rather than the speculative significance of the term stands in the foreground” (8).
Cf. F. Hauck, TDNT 3:804; and G. Panikulam, Koinōnia in the New Testament: A Dynamic Expression of Christian Life (AnBib 85; Rome, 1979), 13–15.
So Barrett, 40; cf. Willis, 209–10, who follows J. Y. Campbell, “Κοινωνία and Its Cognates in the New Testament,” JBL 51 (1932), 380 (repr. Three New Testament Studies [Leiden, 1965], 1–28). But see the discussion in O’Brien, 131–32, who understands it in terms of participation in the spiritual blessings made available in his Son.