6. But though I be rude in speech<\/em> ] The word (see note on 1Co 14:16<\/span>, and cf. Act 4:13<\/span>; 1Co 1:17 ; 1Co 2:1<\/span>; 1Co 2:4 ; 1Co 2:13<\/span>, and ch. 2Co 10:10<\/span>) signifies one not specially instructed in an art. “It does not mean one who is not eloquent, but one who has not learned eloquence by the rules of rhetorical schools.” Bp Wordsworth. See ch. 2Co 10:10<\/span>. Some have regarded it as meaning ‘untrained in Rabbinical learning.’ But this could hardly be said of the pupil of Gamaliel (Act 22:3<\/span>). St Paul seems here to be combating all<\/em> his antagonists, whether of Jewish or Gentile tendencies.<\/p>\n yet not in knowledge<\/em> ] Cf. 1Co 2:6<\/span> and note. Also Eph 3:4<\/span>.<\/p>\n made manifest<\/em> ] See notes on ch. 2Co 1:12-14<\/span>, 2Co 2:17<\/span>, 2Co 4:2 , 2Co 5:11<\/span>, 2Co 7:12<\/span>, and on 2Co 11:4<\/em><\/span>. St Paul continually appeals to his conduct as the best witness of the genuineness of his mission. Most modern editors read the active instead of the passive participle here. We must then translate made things manifest<\/em>.<\/p>\n But though I be rude in speech – <\/B>see the note, 2Co 10:10<\/span>. The word rendered rude here (<\/SPAN><\/span> idiotes) means properly a private citizen, in opposition to one in a public station; then a plebeian, or one unlettered or unlearned, in opposition to one of more elevated rank, or one who is learned; see the Act 4:13<\/span> note; 1Co 14:16<\/span> note. The idea is, my language is that of a plain unlettered person. This was doubtless charged upon him by his enemies, and it may be that he designed in part to admit the truth of the charge.<\/P> Yet not in knowledge – <\/B>I do not admit that I am ignorant of the religion which I profess to teach. I claim to be acquainted with the doctrines of Christianity. It does not appear that they charged him with ignorance. If it be asked how the admission that he was rude in speech consists with the fact that he was endowed by the Holy Spirit. with the power of speaking languages, we may observe that Paul had undoubtedly learned to speak Greek in his native place (Tarsus in Cilicia). and that the Greek which he had learned there was probably a corrupt kind, such as was spoken in that place. It was this Greek which he probably continued to speak; for there is no more reason to suppose that the Holy Spirit would aid him in speaking language which he had thus early learned than he would in speaking Hebrew. The endowments of the Holy Spirit were conferred to enable the apostles to speak languages which they had never learned, not in perfecting them in languages with which they were before acquainted. It may have been true, therefore, that Paul may have spoken some languages which he never learned with more fluency and perfection than he did those which he had learned to speak when he was young. See the remarks of the Archbishop of Cambray, as quoted by Doddridge in loc. It may be remarked. also, that some estimate of the manner of Paul on this point may be formed from his writings. Critics profoundly acquainted with the Greek language remark, that while there is great energy of thought and of diction in the writings of Paul; while he chooses or coins most expressive words, yet that there is everywhere a lack of Attic elegance of manner, and of the smoothness and beauty which were so grateful to a Grecian ear.<\/P> But we have been thoroughly made manifest … – <\/B>You have known all about me. I have concealed nothing from you, and you have had ample oppotunity to become thoroughly acquainted with me. The meaning is, I need not dwell on this. I need speak no more of my manner of speech or knowledge. With all that you are well acquainted.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 6<\/span>. But though<\/B><\/I> I be <\/B>rude in speech<\/B><\/I>] Though I speak like a common unlettered man<\/I>, in plain unadorned phrase, studying none of the graces of eloquence; yet I am not unskilled in the most profound knowledge<\/I> of God, of spiritual and eternal things, of the nature of the human soul, and the sound truths of the Gospel system: ye yourselves are witnesses of this, as in all these things I have been thoroughly manifested among<\/I> you<\/I>.<\/P> <\/P> Inspired men received all their doctrines immediately from God, and often the very words<\/I> in which those doctrines should be delivered to the world; but in general the Holy Spirit appears to have left them to their own language, preventing them from using any expression that might be equivocal, or convey a contrary sense to that which God intended.<\/P> <\/P> That St. Paul wrote a strong, nervous, and sufficiently pure language, his own writings sufficiently testify; but the graces<\/I> of the Greek tongue he appears not to have studied<\/I>, or at least he did not think it proper to use them; for perhaps there is no tongue in the world that is so apt to seduce the understanding<\/I> by its sounds<\/I> and harmony<\/I>, as the Greek. It is not an unusual thing for Greek scholars to the present day to be in raptures with the harmony<\/I> of a Greek verse<\/I>, the sense of which is but little regarded, and perhaps is little worth! I should suppose that God would prevent<\/I> the inspired writers from either speaking or writing thus, that sound<\/I> might not carry the hearer away from sense<\/I>; and that the persuasive force of truth might alone prevail, and the excellence of the power appear to be of God and not of man. Taking up the subject in this point of view, I see no reason to have recourse to the supposition, or fable<\/I> rather, that the apostle had an impediment in his speech<\/I>, and that he alludes to this infirmity in the above passage.<\/P><\/p>\n But though I be rude in speech; <\/B>admit (saith the apostle) that I be no orator, speaking to you in high language, or in a neat style and phrase; either having no faculty that way, or, if I have, yet choosing rather to speak plainly, and home to your consciences, than floridly, to tickle your ears with a fine sound and chiming of words. <\/P> Yet not in knowledge; <\/B>yet, I bless God, I am not defective in knowledge; and, as God hath enlightened me with a large knowledge of his will, so I have communicated to you the whole counsel of God. <\/P> But we have been throughly made manifest among you in all things; <\/B>and in all things, which may declare me an apostle, one sent of Christ about the business of the gospel, I have been made manifest amongst you; preaching amongst you the whole doctrine of the gospel, and having been an instrument to convert many of you from paganism to Christianity. <\/P> <\/p>\n 6. rude<\/B>Greek,<\/I> “acommon man”; a “laic”; not rhetorically trained;unskilled in finish of diction. 1Co 2:1-4<\/span>;1Co 2:13<\/span>; 2Co 10:10<\/span>;2Co 10:11<\/span>, shows his words<\/I>were not without weight,<\/I> though his “speech” wasdeficient in oratorical artifice. “Yet I am not so in myknowledge” (2Co 12:1-5<\/span>;Eph 3:1-5<\/span>). <\/P> have been . . . mademanifest<\/B>Read with the oldest manuscripts, “We have madethings (Gospel truths) manifest,” thus showing our “knowledge.”English Version<\/I> would mean, I leave it to yourselves to decidewhether I be rude in speech . . . : for we have been thoroughly(literally, “in everything”) made manifest among you(literally, “in respect to you”; “in relation toyou”). He had not by reserve kept back his “knowledge”in divine mysteries from them (2Co 2:17<\/span>;2Co 4:2<\/span>; Act 20:20<\/span>;Act 20:27<\/span>). <\/P> in all things<\/B>The Greek<\/I>rather favors the translation, “among all men”; the sensethen is, we have manifested the whole truth among all men with a viewto your benefit [ALFORD].But the Greek<\/I> in Php 4:12<\/span>,”In each thing and in all things,” sanctions EnglishVersion,<\/I> which gives a clearer sense.<\/P><\/p>\n But though I be rude in speech<\/strong>,…. Which might be objected to him, setting himself upon a level with men so famous for their diction, and elegance of style; and to this he answers, not by owning he was so, but granting it to be so; for the Apostle Paul was not an unlearned man, an idiot in speech, unskilful in language, his writings testify the contrary; he did not indeed, in his public ministry, dress his sermons with the flowers of rhetoric, or adorn his discourses with the words of human wisdom, with bombast, and great swelling words of vanity; he chose a plainer and easier style, more accommodated to the vulgar, to the capacities of the people he was concerned with; for he had not to do with philosophers and senators, but with the common people chiefly; with persons of every sex, age, and condition of life: in this sense indeed he acted as an idiot, a plebeian, a private person; he used a popular style, or, as the Jews say of several of their Rabbins s, he , “preached”, or explained “in the common language” of people; which the common people used, and not the learned, and to which reference may be had here: but though he wisely pursued this method, as being most likely to be useful,<\/p>\n yet<\/strong> he was<\/p>\n not<\/strong> rude<\/p>\n in knowledge<\/strong>, or unskilful in the mysteries of the Gospel; he was well learned in the knowledge of Christ, and in the doctrines of grace, as all his discourses, sermons, and letters testified; and however negligent he might be thought to be of his style, and take no pains or care about the elegance of his language, but rather studied a plain and popular diction, yet he was always careful to convey profitable and useful knowledge to the souls of men; and thought his discourses might not be fraught with all the beauties of oratory, and enticing words of man’s wisdom, they were full of spiritual knowledge, and showed him to have a large understanding of divine things, for the truth of which he appeals to the Corinthians:<\/p>\n but we have been thoroughly manifest among you in all things<\/strong>; his faith and doctrine, as well as manner of life, were well known unto them; he had not shunned to declare the whole counsel of God unto them: his knowledge in the mystery of Christ’s person and grace, and in all the parts of the everlasting Gospel, was no secret to them; he had used no artful methods to hide himself, or conceal the truth; but by manifestation of it, had commended himself to every man’s conscience in the sight of God; and by observing this, as he had witnesses now among them of the truth of it, so he strikes at the hypocrisy and deceitful methods the false teachers took to cover themselves, their practices, and principles.<\/p>\n s T. Bab. Bava Metzia, fol. 104. 1.<\/p>\n Rude in speech <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Locative case with <\/SPAN><\/span> for which word see on Acts 4:13<\/span>; 1Cor 14:16<\/span>; 1Cor 14:23<\/span>; 1Cor 14:24<\/span>. The Greeks regarded a man as <\/SPAN><\/span> who just attended to his own affairs ( <\/SPAN><\/span>) and took no part in public life. Paul admits that he is not a professional orator (cf. 10:10<\/span>), but denies that he is unskilled in knowledge (‘ <\/SPAN><\/span>).<\/P> Among all men <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). He has made his mastery of the things of Christ plain among all men. He knew his subject. <\/P> <\/p>\n Rude [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. See on 1Co 14:16<\/span>. <\/P> Have been made manifest [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. The correct reading is fanerwsantev, active voice, we have made it manifest.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “But though I be rude in speech,”<\/strong> (ei de kai idiotes to logo) “But if indeed I am unskilled (an idiot) in speech,” have not the vocal, articulate, and rhetoric training that certain of his accusers may have had, 1Co 2:1-4<\/span>; 2Co 10:10<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “Yet not in knowledge,”<\/strong> (all’ ou te gnosei) “Yet not in knowledge,” or comprehension, 1Co 15:9-10<\/span>; 1Co 14:37<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “But we have been thoroughly made manifest,”<\/strong> (all’ en panti phanerosantes) “but in every way we have manifested ourselves,” 2Co 4:2<\/span>, as true apostles.<\/p>\n 4) “Among you in all things,”<\/strong> (en pasineis humas) “in all things or matters among you all,” 2Co 12:11-12<\/span>.<\/p>\n 6. But though I am rude There was one thing (814) in which he might appear, at first view, to be inferior — that he was devoid of eloquence. This judgment, (815) therefore, he anticipates and corrects, while he acknowledges himself, indeed, to be rude and unpolished in speech, while at the same time he maintains that he has knowledge By speech here he means, elegance of expression; and by knowledge he means, the very substance of doctrine. For as man has both a soul and a body, so also in doctrine, there is the thing itself that is taught, and the ornament of expression with which it is clothed. Paul, therefore, maintains that he understands, what should be taught, and what is necessary to be known, though he is not an eloquent orator, so as to know how to set off his doctrine by a polished and eloquent manner of expression. <\/p>\n It is asked, however, whether elegance of speech (816) is not also necessary for Apostles; for how will they otherwise be prepared for teaching? Knowledge might perhaps suffice for others, but how could a teacher be dumb? I answer, that, while Paul acknowledges himself to be rude in speech, it is not as though he were a mere infant, but as meaning, that he was not distinguished by such splendid eloquence as others, to whom he yields the palm as to this, retaining for himself what was the principal thing — the reality itself, (817) while he leaves them talkativeness without gravity. If, however, any one should inquire, why it is that the Lord, who made men’s tongues, (Exo 4:11<\/span>,) did not also endow so eminent an apostle with eloquence, that nothing might be wanting to him, I answer, that he was furnished with a sufficiency for supplying the want of eloquence. For we see and feel, what majesty there is in his writings, what elevation appears in them, what a weight of meaning is couched under them, what power is discovered in them. In fine, they are thunderbolts, not mere words. Does not the efficacy of the Spirit appear more clearly in a naked rusticity of words, (so to speak,) than under the disguise of elegance and ornament? Of this matter, however, we have treated more largely in the former Epistle. (818) In short, he admits, as far as words are concerned, what his adversaries allege by way of objection, while he denies in reality what they hold forth. Let us also learn, from his example, to prefer deeds to words, and, to use a barbarous but common proverb — “ Teneant alii quid nominis, nos autem quid rei ;” — “Let others know something of the name, but let us know something of the reality. ” (819) If eloquence is superadded, let it be regarded by us as something over and above; and farther, let it not be made use of for disguising doctrine, or adulterating it, but for unfolding it in its genuine simplicity. <\/p>\n But everywhere. As there was something magnificent in placing himself on a level with the chief Apostles, that this may not be ascribed to arrogance, he makes the Corinthians judges, provided they judge from what they have themselves experienced; for they had known sufficiently well, from many proofs, that he did not boast needlessly, or without good reason. He means, therefore, that he needs not make use of words, inasmuch as reality and experience afford clear evidence of every thing that he was about to say (820) <\/p>\n (814) “ Il n’y auoit que ceci seul;” — “There was only this one thing.” <\/p>\n (815) “ Ce fol iugement;” — “This foolish judgment.” <\/p>\n (816) “ La faculte de bien parler et auec grace;” — “The power of speaking well and gracefully.” <\/p>\n (817) “ La substance de la chose;” — “The substance of the thing.” <\/p>\n (818) See Calvin on the Corinthians, vol. 1, pp. 75-77. <\/p>\n (819) “ Et afin que i’vse d’vn prouerbe des Latins barbare, commun toutesfois — ‘Que les autres scachent les mots, mais que nous ayons bonne cognoissance de la chose;’” — “And to use a proverb of the Latins, barbarous, indeed, but common — ‘Let others know the words, but let us have a good acquaintance with the reality.’” Tymme, in his translation of Calvin on the Corinthians, (1573,) renders this proverb as follows: “Let other haue the shell, so we may haue the kernell.” — Ed. <\/p>\n (820) “ Monstrent audoigttout ce qu’il en pourroit dire;” — “Show with the finger every thing that he might be prepared to say as to it.” <\/p>\n (6) But though I be rude in speech.<\/strong>The word for rude is the same as that translated as unlearned in 1Co. 14:23-24<\/span>. This, then, had also been said of him by some at Corinth. It might seem at first as if the contemptuous criticism was likely to have come from the Hellenic or paganising party of culture, who despised the Apostle because he was without the polish and eloquence of the rhetoric in which they delighted. The context, however, makes it clear that the opponents now under the lash are the Judaising teachers, the apostles-extraordinary. They apparently affected to despise him because he had abandoned, or had never mastered, the subtleties of Rabbinic casuistry, the wild allegories of Rabbinic interpretation. He talks, we hear them saying, of others as laymen, or unlearned. What right has he so to speak who is practically but a layman himself? How can a man who is cutting and stitching all day be a doctor of the law? Ne sutor ultra crepidam.<\/em> Side by side with the recognition of the dignity of labour in some Jewish proverbs (such, e.g.,<\/em> as that the father who did not teach his son to work taught him to be a thief), there was among the later Rabbis something like the feeling of an aristocracy of scholarship. Even the Son of Sirach, after describing the work of the ploughman and the carpenter and the potter, excludes them from the higher life of wisdom. They shall not be sought for in public counsel . . . they cannot declare justice and judgment; and they shall not be found where parables are spoken (Sir. 38:33). The word for rude was probably used as the equivalent for the Hebrew term by which the Pharisees held up the working classes to contempt as the people of the earth.<\/p>\n But we have been throughly made manifest among you in all things.<\/strong>The readings vary, some of the better MSS. giving the active form of the verb, having made <\/em>(it<\/em>) manifest in everything among all men.<\/em> The apparent awkwardness of having a transitive verb without an object probably led to the substitution of the passive participle.<\/p>\n 6<\/strong>. <\/strong> Rude in speech<\/strong> The Greek word for rude <\/strong> signifies non-professional, <\/em> implying the absence of a literary or scholarly finish of style. The accusation from his detractors he left undenied, but he balanced it by yet not in knowledge<\/strong>. Thus Paul here gives himself the character which modern Greek scholars would attribute to him, namely, unfinished in style but deep in thought. <\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n Made manifest<\/strong> Whether rude or deep we have been unconcealed; we are transparent to your view.<\/p>\n ‘But if it be that I am rude in speech, yet am I not in knowledge; no, in every way have we made this openly clear to you in all things.’<\/p>\n His opponents are accusing him of not preaching like a trained orator. Well, he will not agree with their verdict, but even if it were true it is his deliberate policy not to flaunt himself and not to hide the truth with flowery words (1Co 2:1-5<\/span>). Nevertheless that says nothing about what he knows, about the knowledge that he possesses. He certainly is not ‘rude’ (lacking as an amateur, as a layman) in knowledge. He has fullness of knowledge, as the Twelve do. He knows the ‘full knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ’ (2Co 4:6<\/span>). And indeed he and his co-workers have made all the knowledge that they have openly clear in every way. They do not hide it behind verbosity or superiority.<\/p>\n 2Co 11:6<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Rude in speech,<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> The word , rendered rude, <\/em>frequently signifies a private man; <\/em>one who can speak no better than the generality of his neighbours, being unformed by the rules of eloquence. But whether this sense be applicable to St. Paul, let those judge, who are able to compare his stile with the best Classic writers among the Greeks: let them likewise judge, who are warmed with the pathos and sublimity of his sentiments. To say that this could be his meaning, would, on such a comparison, appear highly absurd; but to apply it to a natural impediment in his speech, is consistent both with the pathos, the sublimity, and correctness of his stile; and is the only sense, I believe, in which it can be understood with the least degree of propriety. <\/p>\n 2Co 11:6<\/span> . A more precise explanation of this . , starting from a concession, so that introduces something apparently opposed. Although, however, I am untrained in speech, yet I am not so in knowledge, but in everything we have become manifest among all in reference to you<\/em> . The view of Hofmann, that that concession bears on the preference of the opponents for Apollos<\/em> , finds no confirmation in the discussion that follows. Comp. on the contrary, 2Co 10:10<\/span> .<\/p>\n does not apply to the (Bengel, Zachariae, and others), for how inappropriate 2Co 11:7<\/span> would then be! But Paul proceeds from the , which he has attributed to himself in opposition to the reproach of want of training in discourse, to his having become manifest in every respect<\/em> , so that and are related to one another as species and genus. [324] It is arbitrary to supply a definite reference for . (Rosenmller: “tanquam verum apostolum et doctorem;” Rckert: “as apostle and honest man”); in every respect<\/em> , says Paul, we have become manifest as to how we are constituted; and what kind<\/em> of manifestation that was its qualitative<\/em> aspect he leaves entirely to the judgment of his readers. Rckert (following Flatt) regards as a parenthesis, and places . . . in connection with 2Co 11:5<\/span> , so that Paul, instead of keeping to the infinitive construction, would pass over into the participial; but after what has been said above, this is a quite superfluous expedient, according to which, moreover, would only stand as a strangely isolated, as it were forlorn thought, out of all connection. Olshausen, too (comp. Beza), breaks up the passage by taking the second as corrective:<\/em> “Yet ye know in fact my whole conduct, why should I still describe it to you?” And yet stands in so natural relation and connection with the previous , that it more readily occurs to us to take as: but on the contrary<\/em> , than, with de Wette, to take it as co-ordinate with the first (introducing a second apodosis), as in 1Co 6:11<\/span> .<\/p>\n ] Paul therefore did not reckon a scholastically-trained eloquence (and he is thinking here specially of the Hellenic type, of which in fact Corinth was a principal seat) as among the requisites for his office. [325] Comp. 1Co 1:17<\/span> ; 1Co 2:1<\/span> ff. But his opponents (comp. 2Co 10:10<\/span> ) disparaged him for the want of it. Regarding , see on Act 4:13 ; 1Co 14:16<\/span> .<\/p>\n <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> ] “quae prima dos apostoli,” Bengel; Mat 12:11<\/span> ; Eph 3:3-4<\/span> ; Gal 1:12<\/span> ; Gal 1:15<\/span> .<\/p>\n <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> ] not: at every time<\/em> (Emmerling, Flatt), nor ubique<\/em> (Erasmus), but, as it always means with Paul: in every point, in every respect<\/em> , 2Co 4:8 , 2Co 6:4<\/span> , 2Co 7:16<\/span> , 2Co 8:7 , 2Co 9:8<\/span> ; see Bengel. Particularly frequent in this Epistle.<\/p>\n After , is to be supplied from what goes before. The aorist<\/em> contains the conception: have not remained hidden, but have become manifest<\/em> . The perfect<\/em> is different in 2Co 5:11<\/span> . The device of Hofmann, that after . we should supply an <\/em><\/strong> to be connected with <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> , yields a thought weak in meaning (“after that we had been made manifest we have been made manifest in presence of you”) and is utterly groundless. How altogether different it is at 2Co 8:24<\/span> ! The transition to the plural form inclusive of others (by which Paul means himself and his fellow-teachers) cannot surprise any one, since often in his case the purely personal consciousness and that of fellowship in a common office present themselves side by side. Comp. 2Co 1:23<\/span> f., 2Co 5:11<\/span> ; 1Th 3:4<\/span> f.; Phm 1:7<\/span> f., al.<\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n ] being separated from <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> cannot (as in Phi 4:2<\/span> ) be taken as neuter<\/em> (in all things, Billroth, Neander; in all possible points, Hofmann: . , Theophylact), but only as masculine: among all<\/em> we have been made manifest in reference to you, that is, among all (i.e. coram omnibus<\/em> ) there has been clearly displayed, and has remained unknown to none, the relation in which we stand to you; every one has become aware what we are to you. Comp. Erasmus (“quales simus erga vos”).<\/p>\n [324] Billroth follows the reading : “If I, however, am unskilled in an artistic discourse of human wisdom, I am not so in the true, deep knowledge of Christianity; yea rather, I have made it (the knowledge) in every point known to you in all things.” Ewald, following the same reading: “but people, who in everything (in every position) have spoken clearly<\/em> regarding all kinds of matters ( ) towards you.”<\/p>\n [325] How Paul, with the great eloquence to which all his Epistles and speeches in the Book of Acts bear testimony, could yet with truth call himself , Augustine, de doctr. Christ.<\/em> iv. 7, has rightly discerned: “Sicut apostolum praecepta eloquentiae secutum fuisse non dicimus: ita quod ejus sapientiam secuta sit eloquentia, non negamus.” Comp. also how Xenophon ( de venat<\/em> . 14, 3) designates and describes himself as idiotes<\/em> , in contradistinction to the sophists<\/em> .<\/p>\n 6 But though I be<\/em> rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been throughly made manifest among you in all things. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 6. But though I be rude in speech<\/strong> ] Gr. an idiot, a plain, downright, homespun, homely spoken person. The ancients busied themselves (saith Cyril), , not about coin and newly coined language, but , about solid demonstrations drawn out of the Holy Scriptures. Jerome reports of Didymus that he was an apostolic writer, as you might easily gather by his style, Tam sensuum nomine quam simplicitate verborum.<\/em> His matter was as lofty as his language low and ordinary. Jerome himself is much commended by learned men, Quod ubique non sit aeque Latinus, <\/em> that he is not always so curious and choice of his words. But what reason he had, I see not, to censure St Paul so sharply as he doth, Ob sensus involutos, eloquium implicatum, et artis Grammaticae imperitiam, <\/em> for his intricate sense, dark elocution, and unskilfulness in grammar learning. True it is, he was a plain preacher, as he here acknowledgeth; and why he affected plainness, he telleth us, 1Co 1:17<\/span> , as stooping to common people’s capacities. But that he could play the orator if he pleased, appearsAct 17:22-31<\/span>Act 17:22-31<\/span> ; Act 26:2<\/span> ; insomuch as the Lycaonians called him Mercury, because he was “a master of speech,” Act 14:12<\/span> . And as for his Epistles, there is as good rhetoric found in them as in any heathen orator whatsoever. Demosthenes is but dull to him; and Austin’s wish was to have seen Paulum in ore, <\/em> Paul preaching, which he would have esteemed a high happiness. <\/p>\n 6.<\/strong> ] Explains that, though in one particular he may fall short of them<\/em> , viz. in rhetorical finish<\/em> and word-wisdom<\/em> , yet in real knowledge, not so<\/em> .<\/p>\n <\/strong> ] a laic<\/strong> , a man not professionally acquainted with that which he undertakes, see reff. The Apostle disclaims mere rhetorical aptitude and power in Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n