1849.] Appearances of our Lord. 29 primis, as the principal points: οἱονεὶ γὰρ θεμέλιός ἐστι πάσης τῆς Morews (Thphlet), not: & dexs (Chrys.); not: among the first, Masc. (Rck.). o xai naqέhaßov] what I have also received in communication. From whom? see on 11: 23. ὑπὲρ τ. αμαρτ. ἡμῶν] on account of our sins Gal. 1: 4, namely in order to atone for them, Ro. 3: 25, in other places simply vzèo quar 1: 13. Ro. 5: 8 and often. κατὰ 7. yoap.] cf. Lu. 22: 37. 24: 25 and following, Acts 8: 35, 26: 22, 23.—V. 4. ¿yýyeqrai] The Perf., and not the Aorist as before and after, because it still continues in its consequences (Mey.). xarà 7. 70.] refers as well to irάon (Isa. 53: 9), as to yy. (Isa. 53: 10. Ps. 16: 10. cf. Acts 2: 25. 13: 34, 35). πεν V. 5. Knoа] Lu. 24: 34, compare explanation of John, p. 212. Tois dadexa] Jno. 20: 19 and following, Lu. 24: 36 and following. dadɛza denotes the apostles as a whole, or as a body, a collegium (like Decemviri, etc.), not according to the exact number; for at that time there were only eleven. Chrys. Thphlet. Oec. include Matthew with those who saw the Lord (namely after the Ascension); but it is a previous appearance that is here spoken of. V. 6. The specifications which now follow are not made dependent upon nagέhaßor by art, but only indeed by a change of construction; for the apostle must also have received these facts. By inera, eira he unquestionably intends to designate the succession of time, cf. ἔσχατον ν. 8. ἐπάνω] over, more than, out of the grammatical regimen, Win. § 38. 5. raxosíos adeλpois] five hundred brethren, believers. A difficulty arises from the fact, that in Acts 1: 15, only one hundred and twenty disciples are mentioned; all however were not perhaps assembled there, or only so many were known to Luke. The testimony of the apostle decides for the correctness of the fact. q' ana] at once, Theodoret où xa évα, à22' óμou nãow, Vulgate, simul; so most; Bretschneider and Mey.: once for all, ef. Ro. 6: 10. Heb. 7: 27. 9: 2. 10: 10; yet, on account of the great number, the former signification is more full of meaning. οἱ πλείους] the majority. μένουσιν] are living. This appearance of Christ, which the evangelists do not mention, Olsh. Flatt and others connect with that in Matt. 28: 16 seq.; yet this evangelist speaks only of the Eleven. V. 7. 'Iaxoßo] probably the brother of the Lord, Gal. 1: 19. (Chrys. Thdrt. Thphlet. Oec. and the common opinion.) Grotius compares the account from the Hebrew-Gospel in Jerome, de vir. ill. c. 2. (Einl. ins N. T. p. 71), but there it is the very first appearance of the risen Lord, that is spoken of. τοῖς-πᾶσιν] seems to include James, so that if the former supposition is correct, azóσrolo is used in a more extended sense (Chrys. Thdrt. Thphlet. Oec. Calv. Bengel, Mey. and others.) V. 8. návrov] this is commonly regarded as Masc., and Meyer limits it to the apostles, because Paul designates himself as the least of them. But must we not connect návrov as Neut. with ox. meaning last of all (cf. Mark 12: 29. Grb. T.)? So návrov pádiova Plat. Prot. p. 330. A. wonɛgeì ro ixrqoμarı] as it were a child prematurely born, the immature fruit, a designation (according to Bllr.) of his violent, as it were, not natural call, but according to that which follows, of his unworthiness, since those prematurely born are weakly. The article places the conception in a definite relation to the apostleship, as it were, a premature birth as an apostle. Knapp and Rink, following older writers in Wlf., erroneously read zo, equivalent to tivi, without any analogy in the N. T. (Mey.). The explanation of Spätling2 is contrary to the use of language ;3 otherwise it would fitly correspond to the late call of the apostle and also to the predicate o žlázioros r. άn. The appearance of Christ, of which the apostle speaks, is unquestionably that mentioned in Acts ix. - Vs. 9, 10. not precisely a parenthesis (Grb. Scho.), but a digression in explanation of the expression "premature birth." os ovx eiμì x. v. 2.] as who, because, ixavós] Matt. 3: 11. 2 Cor. 3: 5. xalɛiovai άn.] to bear the honorable name of apostle. άqızı-ɛov] but through the grace of God, notwithstanding my unworthiness. With the humiliating feeling of personal unworthiness is united the consciousness of the higher power active upon and in it, and this guides thus to the purified self-feeling of one's desert. où xevý] not in vain, without result. NεQIGGÓTεQOV] Acc. Neutr., governed by έxon. αὐτῶν πάντων] “than they altogether, not: than each one of them, as commonly.” (Mey.) Although this explanation can be historically justified, still it is not certain and necessary. έxoníaoa] labored (Gal. 4: 11), not: suffered (Chrys. Thphlet.). oux-suoi] to prevent misunderstanding, as if he had said ἐκοπίασα in an egotistic, vain-glorious sense. By οὐκ ἐγὼ άλλά (as in Matt. 10: 20. Mark 9:37. Jno. 12: 44. Acts 5: 4. 1 Thess. 4: 8) merely the subordination of the human activity to the Divine is expressed, not the suspension of the former. Augustin de grat. et lib. arb. c. 3. Non ego autem, i. e. non solus, sed gratia Dei mecum. Ac per hoc nec gratia Dei sola, nec ipse solus, sed gratia Dei cum illo. Citations in verification in Wetst., attic außwua, Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 209. 2 voτεроv уévvημa, Tives in Thphlet. Hdrch. Schulthess in Tzschirn. Anal. 1. 4. p. 212 seq. 3 Fritzsche de nonn. post. P. ad Cor. ep. locis Diss. I. 60 sq. 31 1849.] General resurrection based on that of Christ. (Hdrch.). ovv uoi] here the human activity is united with the Divine. V. 11. ouv] by this the thread of verse 8 is again taken up, although the εire-xnovocouεv presupposes the substance of the digression in vs. 9, 10; for only there is the calling and labor of the apostle spoken of. Exɛivo] does not refer back to vs. 7, 8 (Mey.), but to vs. 9, 10. ovro] as vs. 3 seq., especially v. 4. The structure of the sentence is as in 13: 8. ourws] in the same manner, namely, by this, that ye have received this teaching. notevoαre] as v. 2. ἐπιστεύσατε] Vs. 12-20. Upon the fact of the resurrection of Christ, the apostle now grounds the doctrine of the general resurrection. V. 12. 8] places the denial of the resurrection of the dead in contradiction with this truth. nos] how is it possible that, etc. Ro. 6: 2, Gal. 4:19. oux orir] is a non-entity, a chimera, cf. 7: 9. Winer § 59. 5. b, p. 453. -V. 13. By the de a chain of inferences is attached and continued in the following verses. The first conclusion here made does not rest upon the principle: sublato genere tollitur et species (Grotius, Mey. ; similar Knpp. p. 316. Rck.), nor upon the similarity of being in Christ and men (Thdrt. Bllr. cf. Ust. p. 364.)-to be sure a Pauline (v. 21. Heb. 2: 17), but here subordinate conception,—but, according to vs. 20 seq. upon this, that Christ by his resurrection had made a commencement in the resurrection of the dead, and that the latter is a necessary consequence of the former. So Chrys. Thphlet.; similar Calvin. Against the last mode of inference the objection may indeed be made, that from the ἀνάστ. νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔστιν it does not follow, that Jesus is not risen, but simply that [under the supposition made] his resurrection has not fulfilled its end (Mey.); but this objection can be made only when one overlooks, that, according to the apostle, the connection of the resurrection of Christ with the general resurrection is founded in the Divine arrangement of the world, and for him has the validity of an axiom. On the other hand, the first mode of inference is merely logical, and the apt objection may be made to it, that Christ, as sinless, was not subject to death, and that consequently his resurrection could not be the condition of that of sinful men. V. 14. ovx švýɣegra] is to be taken in connection with the preceding, as in vs. 16, 17 cf. 7: 9. xevòv άqat xai [according to A D EFG 17. all.) 7. xýo. nuov] therefore also our (entire apostolical) preaching is vain, empty, without foundation? [if Christ be not risen], 1 It can hardly be said that àpa has in Paul anything surprising (Mey. after Hartung, Part. 1. 432. Kühn. § 757. b.), cf. Ro. 7: 3, 25. 10: 7. 2 Cor. 5: 15. Gal. 3: 29. 2 Cf. Eph. 5: 6. Col. 2: 8; according to Knpp. inutilis; opposed to this view, A. F. Müller, diss. exeg. de loco Paul. 1 Cor. 15: 12-19. Lips. 1839. p. 8. and indeed because it is founded upon the resurrection and death of Christ. κενὴ δὲ καὶ ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν] vain also your faith; this is founded namely upon the κήρυγμα. V. 15. Lehm. Tschdf. Mey. connect this verse with the preceding by a comma, plainly contrary to the true relation of the chain of clauses and inferences for εύρισκ.Θεοῦ has its ground in that which follows, whilst the clauses xevòr-vuor have their ground in that which precedes. εvoιoxóμedα] we are found, prove ourselves. εvSouάorvoes Dεov] as false witnesses concerning God (Rck. Mey.) not: of God, which God has (Bllr.). False witnesses according to what follows, because they would have declared that which was false; according to Knpp. quia auctoritatem Dei ementiuntur, and Müll. 1. c. distinguishes strictly between werdeis pάor., qui falsum testimonum dicunt, and yevdoμágr., qui mentiuntur se esse testes, cf. yɛvdonoogйra and others; on the contrary, however, wevdodidάoxalos, yevdoxaτýjogos. — xarà dɛov] most interpret: against God (Matt. 26: 59), because against the truth; according to Meyer, "every consciously false declaration, that God has done anything, is against God." It is better to interpret it, with Raphel., according to Xenoph. Cyrop. 1. p. 6. Plutarch. praedag. c. 4. Wlf.: of God. εἴπερ ἄρα] if truly peradventure (Mey.); but the two hardly go together in German [or in English-TR.]; and ei apa, si forte, is different from eneo aga, if truly therefore, siquidem, ut vos putatis (Müll.). cf. the examples, where it is used elliptically, in Viger. ed. Herm. p. 514. Passow p.640. a. V. 16. Vindication of the ov ovx y. x. 7. λ. by an almost literal repetition of v. 13. V. 17. Repetition of the inference for the Christian faith, drawn in v. 14, from the preceding proposition, with the modification that this faith is represented as fruitless (uaraía, vain, fruitless, cf. 3:20), and indeed in reference to redemption from sin. vμav] ye are still in your sins, in the condition of the misery of sin ; similar Ro. 3: 9 vç' àμagríav elva. The inference rests upon the inseparability of the resurrection of Christ and his atoning death, and, in general, upon the inseparability of all the parts in the work of sal vation. V. 18. A new (xaí also) inference from the ei Xptoròs ovx 7., and indeed such an one, as must give pain to many affectionate hearts in Corinth (11:30). oi xonérres év Xolar] those who have fallen asleep (v. 6, and 11: 30) in Christ (in communion with him, in faith in him, not meaning: for the sake of Christ, i. e. as martyrs, Chrys. 1 dé is to be omitted, according to ABD F G 17. all. Vulg. all. Patr. with Lachmann, Tischendorf, Rck. Mey. 1849.] Conclusion of the Argument. 33 Thdrt. Thphlet. Oec. Grt.), the departed Christians, at the same time not including the pious, who lived before Christ (Calov. Kпpp.). αлoLovro] are lost, i. e. Christians, if there be no resurrection, are subjected to destruction in Gehenna. V. 19. A sad application of this inference to the living. The absence of a Part. copul. may be explained by the emotion, cf. Ro. 7: 24, 25. The correct position of the words, according to A B D * E F G 17. It. Patr. Lehm. Tschdf. is : εἰ ἐν τῇ ζωῇ ταύτῃ ἐν Χριστῷ ἐλπικότες ἐσμεν μόνον]. Whether μόνον be connected with ἐν τῇ ζωῇ τ. (the common opinion, and for this transposition Ro. 5: 6 may be adduced) or with the whole clause (Mey. Müll.) is indifferent as regards the sense in the main point, if the emphasis be laid upon iv z. (wy z.: "If we are only such, as have hope in Christ in this life” (Mey.). According to Mey. Müll. zavrn has not the emphasis because it is placed after; but this reason is of no force, cf. Eph. 1: 21; nor is 7. ζωή to be placed in opposition to κοιμηθέντες (Mey.); ἐν τ. ζ. τ. is plainly contrasted with the destiny of the departed, indefinitely conceived, after death, if there be no resurrection. Yet I should rather divide the emphasis between ἐν τ. ζ. τ. and ἠλπ. ἐσμέν, and suppose a contrast between hope in this life and the fulfilment after death (cf. Ro. 8: 24). Morus and Rck. connect μóvov with iv Xourg; on the contrary, Mey. ¿λnie v Xo. to place one's hope in Christ, ef. Eph. 1: 12; the Perf. as in Jno. 5: 45. 2 Cor. 1: 10, and the Partic. with soμév, in order to render more prominent the idea of hope. ἐλεεινότεροι π. drvo.] more miserable than all men. V. 20. Conclusion of the argument, since the fact of the resurrection of Jesus is taken as proved (vvvì dé, but now, cf. vs. 4 seq.) and at the same time the axiom of belief connected with it (on which the argument has been hitherto conducted): ἀπαρχὴ τῶν κεκοιμημένων] as first fruits of those who have fallen asleep (is he awaked from the dead), so that he has made the commencement in the resurrection of the dead. cf. Col. 1:18: ἀρχὴ πρωτότοκος ἐκ νεκρῶν. Vs. 21-28. Explanation of this axiom by showing its connection with other truths. 1) Vs. 21-24. Christ, as contrast to Adam, is the author and effector of the resurrection. Vs. 21, 22. The axiom of faith, that the resurrection of the dead has its ground in the resurrection of Christ, is connected with what is laid down in Ro. 5: 12 seq., that Christ, as contrast to Adam, is the second head of the human race, or the head of the human race restored, as Adam was the head of the fallen race of men. Whilst in Romans this parallelism is pointed out in the two points of sin and death on the one side, and righteousness and life on the other, here only one point is exhibited. (cf. remarks |