1 Corinthians 16:21,22

“The salutation of me, Paul, with mine own hand. 22. If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema! Maranatha.”

Paul, according to ancient custom, dictated his letters; but we see from 2Th 3:17 that he added the salutation and signature with his own hand, no doubt to guarantee their authenticity. This precaution was even then necessary, as is proved by the case to which he alludes, 2 Thessalonians 2:2.

But in such a salutation there is implicitly contained a benediction; and here the apostle feels himself suddenly arrested. Can he really bless all the readers of his letter? Are there not some among them whom he is rather obliged to curse? He had more than once stigmatized the want of love as the radical cause of the disorders and vices which stained this Church (1 Corinthians 8:1-3; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, and chap. 13). Now all lack of love to the brethren betrays lack of love to the Lord Himself. More than that, he had once (1 Corinthians 12:3) been obliged to refer to persons who said: Jesus accursed! and that while pretending to be organs of the Spirit of God. A burden weighs on his heart as he utters the prayer which should close his letter, and by a sudden impulse of the Spirit he gives vent to the feeling of indignation which fills him at the thought of such Christians: “If there is one among you who...” As every hearer listened to this εἰ τίς, if any man, he was called to ask himself, like the apostles at the Holy Table: “Is it I?” The more so because the conjunction εἰ implies the reality of the case. The term φιλεῖν, to cherish, has a shade of greater tenderness and more of a certain familiarity in it than ἀγαπᾷν, to love, which rather implies a feeling of veneration. It is an affection of a personal, cordial nature, which the apostle requires, that of friend for friend. The negative οὐ denotes more than the simple absence of affection; it includes the idea of the feeling opposed to love, positive antipathy. In the Alex., the object is τὸν κύριον, the Lord; the other two families, with the Itala and the Peschito, add the name Jesus Christ, and it must be confessed that the term φιλεῖν naturally calls for the name of the person who is to be the object of such an attachment. We have so often found the Alex. documents faulty, through the negligence of the copyist or otherwise, that we do not hesitate here again to give the preference to the received reading. Tertullian simply read ᾿Ιησοῦν, Jesus.

As to the word ἀνάθεμα, an offering devoted to destruction, see on 1 Corinthians 12:3. It is evident that the term cannot here, any more than elsewhere, denote ecclesiastical excommunication. The word Maranatha belongs to the Aramaic language spoken in Palestine at that period. It is usually regarded as compounded of the two words Mar, Lord, with the suffix an, our, and atha, the perfect of the verb to come: and hence the meaning: “Our Lord has come.” The perfect has come may, in this case, be regarded as referring to the first coming of the Messiah; so Chrysostom and others. But it is impossible to establish a suitable relation between this first coming and the punishment of unfaithful Christians. Or has come may be taken as a prophetic perfect: “The Lord is present, ready to visit with a curse the man who, while professing to believe in Him, does not love Him.” This is the sense taken by Meyer, Beet, etc.; comp. Philippians 4:5: “The Lord is at hand.” Edwards regards it at the same time as an echo of those discourses in tongues which celebrated in enthusiastic tones the near coming of Christ. But the use of the verb in the perfect to denote a future event, outside of prophecy strictly so called, is far from natural. How can we avoid recalling here the similar saying which closes the book of the Revelation: “Come, Lord Jesus!” and asking if such is not the meaning of the word Maranatha? Bickel has proved that the word can perfectly well be resolved into Marana, our Lord, and tha (the imperative of atha, in Western Aramaic), come! This formula would thus be exactly the same as that of which we have the Greek translation in the Apocalypse. It is perfectly in place here: the apostle appeals to the coming of Him who will purify His Church. But why reproduce this formula in Aramaic in a Greek Epistle addressed to Greeks? The term has been taken as a mysterious watchword common among Christians; or it has been thought that Paul wished thereby to give more solemnity to his threat. Finally, Hofmann thinks that when they heard this Aramaic expression, St. Paul's Palestinian adversaries must immediately have understood that it was addressed to them. To these suppositions, all equally improbable, I may be allowed to add another which will perhaps have no more success than its predecessors. To the signature written with his own hand, did not Paul add the impression of the seal which he was in the habit of using? And did not this seal bear this prayer as a device in the Aramaic tongue: “Come, Lord Jesus!” In the copies of the letter, since the seal could not be reproduced, the copyists at least preserved the device.

It is remarkable that, in the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, this word Maranatha is used at the end of the Liturgy of the Holy Supper (c. 10), and immediately after the words: “If any man is not holy, let him repent!” Then follows: “ Maranatha, amen! ” But it is impossible to draw any inference from this passage for any of the interpretations which we have indicated.

The apostle cannot take leave of the Church under the impression of a threatening; the following verses are connected with the salutations of 1 Corinthians 16:21.