성경 주석서

이 장에서 사도는 기독교의 저 위대한 교리—곧 죽은 자의 부활—를 다룬다. I. 그는 우리 구주의 부활의 확실성을 확립한다(고전 15:1-11). II. 그는 이 진리로부터, 죽은 자의 부활은 없다고 말하던 자들을 논박하기에 나선다(고전 15:12-19). III. 우리 구주의 부활로부터 그는 죽은 자의 부활을 확립하며, 또 다른 몇 가지 고려 사항들로써 고린도 교인들이 이를 믿는 신앙 위에 굳게 서도록 한다(고전 15:20-34). IV. 그는 이 진리에 대한 한 가지 반론에 답하고, 그 기회를 빌려 부활 때에 신자들의 몸에 얼마나 엄청난 변화가 일어날 것인지를 보여 준다(고전 15:35-50). V. 그는 마지막 나팔이 울릴 때에 살아 있을 자들에게 어떤 변화가 일어날 것인지, 그리고 그때 의인들이 사망과 무덤을 상대로 얻게 될 완전한 승리에 관하여 우리에게 일러 준다(고전 15:51-57). 그리고 VI. 그는 그리스도인들에게 그들의 주를 섬기는 일에 결연하고 부지런하라는 매우 진지한 권면으로써 그 논증을 마무리하는데, 이는 그들이 주께 그토록 영광스럽게 상 받을 줄을 알기 때문이다(고전 15:58).

이 중요하고 깊이 흥미로운 장을 나는 이 서신의 “세 번째” 부분이라고 말한 바 있다. 서론을 보라. 이 장은 서신의 다른 어느 부분보다 더 중요하다. 그것은 기독교의 주된 진리, 따라서 기독교 자체를 위한 연결되고 치밀하며 반박할 수 없는 논증을 담고 있기 때문이다. 또한 죽을 수밖에 없는 존재로서, 그리고 죽음에 대한 본능적인 두려움을 가진 존재로서 우리에게는 서신의 다른 어느 부분보다 더 흥미롭다. 그러므로 이 장은 언제나 해석자들에게 깊은 관심의 대상이 되어 왔으며, 모든 사람이 가장 깊이 주의를 기울일 만하다. 이 장의 논증이 견고하다면 기독교는 참되다. 그리고 그것이 참되다면, 이 장은 죽어 가지만 불멸하는 인간에게 제시될 수 있는 가장 높고 영광스러운 전망을 우리에게 펼쳐 보인다.

사도가 여기서 부활에 관한 이 논의를 도입한 데에는 아마 두 가지 이유가 있었을 것이다.

첫째, 기독교의 진리를 위한 주된 논증을 압축되고 연결된 형태로 제시하는 것이 바람직했다. 고린도인들은 미묘한 질문들로 혼란스러워졌고, 분파와 당파로 찢겨 있었다. 그리고 그들이 분파와 당파에 대한 열심 속에서 종교 자체의 진리를 위한 이 위대하고 생명력 있는 논증을 놓칠 가능성이 있었다. 더 나아가 복음의 원수들이 그곳에 존재하던 분열과 다툼을 보고, 그 논쟁들을 이용하여 그런 열매를 낳는 종교는 하나님께로부터 온 것일 수 없다고 말할 우려도 있었다. 그러므로 그들이 기독교의 진리를 위한 명백하고 분명하며 반박할 수 없는 논증에 접근할 수 있게 하는 것이 중요했다. 그렇게 하여 그들의 분열과 다툼이 낳는 악한 영향이 상쇄될 수 있었다.

둘째, 고린도전서 15:12에서 분명히 드러나듯, 죽은 자의 부활이라는 중요한 교리가 고린도에서 부정되었고, 이 오류가 교회 자체 안에 발판을 얻고 있었다. 그것이 어떤 근거에서, 또는 어떤 집단이나 당파에 의해 부정되었는지는 알려져 있지 않다. 어떤 사두개파 교사의 영향이 그 교리의 거부로 이끌었을 수도 있고, 철학의 영향이었을 수도 있다. 사도행전 17:32에서 우리는 어떤 헬라인들 가운데서는 부활 교리가 우스꽝스러운 것으로 여겨졌음을 안다. 또한 디모데후서 2:18에서 어떤 사람들은 부활이 이미 지나갔으며, 따라서 영적 부활 외에는 아무것도 없다고 주장했음을 배운다. 이러한 오류들을 반박하고, 죽은 자의 부활 교리를 견고한 기초 위에 세우며, 그렇게 하여 기독교 진리의 논증을 제공하는 것이 이 장의 목적이었다.

이 장은 네 부분으로 나누어 볼 수 있으며, 부활에 관한 네 가지 질문이 해결된다.

1. 죽은 자의 부활이 있는가? 고린도전서 15:1-34.

2. 죽은 자들은 어떤 몸으로 일어나는가? 고린도전서 15:35-51.

3. 주 예수께서 세상을 심판하러 오실 때 살아 있는 사람들은 어떻게 되는가? 고린도전서 15:51-54.

4. 이 교리의 실제적 관련은 무엇인가? 고린도전서 15:55-58.

I. 죽은 자들은 일으켜질 것이다. 고린도전서 15:1-34. 바울은 다음 논증들로 이것을 입증하고, 다음 방식으로 설명한다.

(1) 그리스도께서 죽은 자 가운데서 살아나셨음을 보이는 이유들을 제시함으로써. 고린도전서 15:1-11.

(a) 성경으로부터. 고린도전서 15:1-4.

(b) 목격자들의 증언으로부터. 고린도전서 15:5-11.

(2) 반대 교리의 부조리함을 보임으로써. 고린도전서 15:12-34.

(a) 죽은 자들이 일어나지 않는다면, 그리스도께서도 살아나지 않으셨다는 결론이 따른다. 고린도전서 15:13.

(b) 그리스도께서 살아나지 않으셨다면, 그는 헛되이 전파되었고 그에게 두어진 믿음도 아무 소용이 없다. 고린도전서 15:14.

(c) 사도들은 거짓 증인과 악한 사람들이라는 결론이 따를 것이다. 그러나 고린도인들은 그 반대를 알 충분한 이유가 있었다.

(d) 그가 살아나지 않으셨다면 고린도인들의 믿음은 헛되어야 하며, 그들은 여전히 용서받지 못한 죄인으로 자신을 여겨야 한다. 왜냐하면 그들의 용서에 대한 모든 소망은 그의 사역이 받아들여졌고 그가 일으켜지셨다는 사실에서 생겨나야 하기 때문이다. 고린도전서 15:16-17.

(e) 그리스도께서 살아나지 않으셨다면, 그를 믿었던 그들의 모든 경건한 친구들은 잃어버린 자들로 여겨져야 한다. 고린도전서 15:18.

(f) 부활이 없다면 그리스도를 믿는 사람들은 다른 모든 사람보다 더 비참한 처지에 있다는 결론이 따를 것이다. 고린도전서 15:19.

(g) 죽은 자들이 일어나지 않는다면, 죽은 자의 부활을 위한 세례는 부조리하고 헛될 것이다. 그리스도께서 살아나셨다는 믿음과, 그들도 일어날 것이라는 소망에 근거하여 세례를 받는 것은 헛될 것이다. 고린도전서 15:29.

(h) 죽은 자들이 일어나지 않는다면, 사도들과 다른 사람들이 그토록 많은 수고와 박해를 겪은 것도 헛될 것이다. 고린도전서 15:30-32.

이 논증의 이 부분에서(고린도전서 15:20-28) 바울은 그 교리에 관한 “예시”, 또는 그것에 관한 중요한 사실의 진술을 도입한다. 그렇게 하여 고린도전서 15:19의 논증을 고린도전서 15:29에 나오는 다음 논증과 “분리”한다. 이런 사상의 흐름 중단은 바울의 글에서 드물지 않으며, 어떤 두드러진 생각이 떠오르거나 그럴듯한 반론에 응답해야 할 때, 그것을 진술하기 위해 논증을 잠시 멈추는 그의 개념의 “충만함”과 “풍성함”을 나타낸다. 이 삽입 부분은 다음 항목들로 이루어진다.

(1) 그리스도께서 “실제로 살아나셨다”는 승리롭고 기쁜 확신. 마치 그의 마음이 가득 차서, 느린 논증의 필요 때문에 생기는 지연을 견디지 못하는 것처럼 말한다. 고린도전서 15:19-20.

(2) 그는 그 교리를 “예시”하거나, 죽음이 사람으로 말미암아 들어왔으므로 부활의 확실성이 인간 본성 안에 있는 한 사람에 의해 입증되는 것이 “합당하다”는 점을 보인다. 고린도전서 15:21-22. 이것은 “유비”에서 나온 논증으로, 사람이 파멸에 말려든 방식과 어느 정도 비슷한 방식으로 사람이 일으켜져야 한다는 교리의 분명한 적절성에서 끌어낸 것이다.

(3) 그는 이 모든 일이 이루어질 “순서”를 진술한다. 고린도전서 15:23-28. 부활이 그리스도의 부활에 전적으로, 또 긴밀히 의존하기 때문에 이미 지나갔음에 틀림없다고 주장한 사람들이 있었을 가능성이 있다. 디모데후서 2:18과 비교하라. 그러므로 바울은 이 반론에 답한다. 그리고 그것이 정해진 질서 가운데 일어나야 함을 보인다. 그리스도께서 먼저 살아나셨고, 그에게 속한 친구들은 그가 오실 때 살아날 것이다. 그런 다음 그는 그때 어떤 일이 일어날지를 진술한다. 곧 죽은 자의 부활, 모든 구속받은 자들의 하나님께 대한 완전한 회복, 모든 원수의 복종으로 구속 사역이 완성될 때 일어날 일이다.

II. 일으켜질 몸의 본질은 무엇인가? 고린도전서 15:35-51.

이 질문은 다음 방식으로 설명된다.

(1) 뿌려지는 곡식에 대한 언급으로. 고린도전서 15:36-38.

(2) 여러 종류의 육체가 있다는 사실에 대한 언급으로. 고린도전서 15:39.

(3) 하늘에 속한 몸들과 땅에 속한 몸들이 있다는 사실에 대한 언급으로. 고린도전서 15:40.

(4) 해와 달과 별들 사이에 차이가 있다는 사실로. 고린도전서 15:41.

(5) 이러한 예시들로 마음이 준비된 뒤, 사람의 몸이 겪어야 할 중요한 변화들과 그가 하늘에서 가지게 될 몸의 본질에 대한 “직접적인 진술”로. 고린도전서 15:42-50. 그것은 다음과 같다.

(a) 썩지 않는 몸이다. 고린도전서 15:42.

(b) 영광스러운 몸이다. 고린도전서 15:43.

(c) 능력 있는 몸이다. 고린도전서 15:43.

(d) 신령한 몸이다. 고린도전서 15:44.

(e) 하늘로부터 오신 주, 곧 둘째 사람의 몸과 같다. 고린도전서 15:45-50.

III. 주 예수께서 죽은 자들을 일으키기 위해 다시 오실 때 살아 있는 사람들은 어떻게 되는가?

대답: 그들은 순식간에 변화되어 하늘에 합당하게 되고, 죽은 자 가운데서 일으켜질 영화롭게 된 성도들과 같이 될 것이다. 고린도전서 15:51-54.

IV. 이 교리의 실제적 결과 또는 영향. 고린도전서 15:55-58.

(1) 이 교리는 영광스럽고 승리롭다. 그것은 죄의 모든 악을 이겼으며 마음을 기쁨으로 채워야 한다. 고린도전서 15:55-57.

(2) 이 교리는 그리스도인들을 부지런함, 믿음의 견고함, 인내로 이끌어야 한다. 그들의 수고가 헛되지 않을 것이기 때문이다. 고린도전서 15:58.

사도가 고린도 사람들에게 전한 복음, 곧 그리스도께서 우리 죄를 위하여 죽으시고 사흘 만에 다시 살아나셨다는 사실, 고린도전서 15:1-4. 그분의 부활의 증인들, 곧 베드로와 야고보와 오백 명이 넘는 형제들, 고린도전서 15:5-7. 마지막으로 바울 자신도 그분을 보았고, 그분께 사도직으로 부르심을 받았다, 고린도전서 15:8-11. 죽은 자의 부활에 대한 반론들에 답한다, 12-34절. 이 위대한 일이 이루어질 방식, 고린도전서 15:35-49. 마지막 날에 일어날 놀라운 사건들, 고린도전서 15:50-57. 이 교리를 우리가 어떻게 사용해야 하는지, 고린도전서 15:58.

이 장으로 보아 고린도에는 부활을 부정하는 거짓 사도들이 얼마 있었던 듯하다. 고린도전서 15:12를 보라. 그 결과로 성 바울은 이 장에서 세 가지 문제를 논한다. -

1. 죽은 자의 부활이 있는가? 고린도전서 15:1-35.

2. 부활한 몸의 성질은 어떠할 것인가? 고린도전서 15:35-51.

3. 심판 날에 살아 있는 채로 발견될 사람들은 어떻게 될 것인가? 고린도전서 15:51-57.

I. 그는 부활을 증명한다.

1. 성경으로부터, 고린도전서 15:1-4.

2. 목격 증인들로부터, 고린도전서 15:5-12.

II. 그는 반대 교리의 부조리를 보여 줌으로써 부활을 증명한다. -

1. 죽은 자가 다시 살아나지 않는다면 그리스도도 다시 살아나지 않으셨다, 고린도전서 15:13.

2. 그분이 다시 살아나지 않으셨다면, 복음의 전파에 따라 그분을 믿는 것은 부조리한 일이 된다, 고린도전서 15:14.

3. 이 부활을 증언하는 사도들은 거짓 증인일 수밖에 없다, 고린도전서 15:15.

4. 그것을 믿는 고린도 사람들의 믿음도 헛될 수밖에 없다, 고린도전서 15:16, 고린도전서 15:17.

5. 그리스도께서 다시 살아나지 않으셨다면, 그리스도를 믿는 믿음 안에서 죽은 모든 신자는 멸망한 것이다, 고린도전서 15:18.

6. 부활이 없다면 그리스도 안에 있는 신자들은 다른 어떤 사람들보다 더 비참한 상태에 있다, 고린도전서 15:19.

7. 그리스도께서 그들을 위하여 죽으시고 다시 살아나셨다는 믿음 안에서 세례를 받은 사람들은 속은 것이다, 고린도전서 15:29.

8. 이곳에서 잠시 고난을 받은 뒤 영광스러운 부활을 얻으리라는 근거 위에서 박해를 견디는 사도들과 일반 그리스도인들은 어리석고 무익한 일을 하고 있는 것이다, 고린도전서 15:30-32.

INTRODUCTION TO 1 Corinthians 15

The apostle, in this chapter, recommends the Gospel, and gives a summary of it, proves the resurrection of Christ, and by various arguments establishes the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, and answers objections made unto it. He also sets forth the glory there will be upon the bodies of risen saints, and the change that will be made on living ones; and concludes with an exhortation to perseverance in faith and holiness. As his chief view is the doctrine of the resurrection, he introduces this by recommending the Gospel in general, or by observing that this is a principal doctrine which should be remembered and retained, because it was the Gospel which he had preached, and they had received, and had hitherto persevered in, 1 Corinthians 15:1 and besides was essential to salvation, and the means of it, by which they would be saved, if they retained it, except their faith in it was in vain, as it would be should they drop it, 1 Corinthians 15:2. And moreover, the apostle had received it by divine revelation, and had faithfully delivered it to them, and therefore it became them to hold it fast; the sum of which were the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, agreeably to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, 1 Corinthians 15:3 and then he reckons up the eyewitnesses of the latter, as first Peter, then the twelve disciples, then five hundred brethren at one time; next James, and all the apostles; and last of all himself, 1 Corinthians 15:5 of whom he speaks in a very diminishing style, describing himself as an abortive, affirming himself to be the least of the apostles, and unworthy to be in that office, or bear that name, giving this as a reason for it, because he had been a persecutor of the church of Christ, 1 Corinthians 15:9 wherefore he ascribes the dignity he was raised to entirely to the free grace of God; and yet he magnifies his office, and observes, that the gifts of grace bestowed upon him were not in vain, and that he was a more abundant labourer than the rest of the apostles, and had more success; but then he freely declares that all he had, and all he did, were by the grace of God, 1 Corinthians 15:10. But however, not to insist upon the difference between him and other apostles; he observes, that the subject matter of their ministry was the same, namely, a suffering and risen Saviour, and who was also the object of the faith of the believing Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 15:11 wherefore the apostle proceeds to blame some among them for denying the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, seeing it was a principal part of the ministry of the Gospel, that Christ was risen from the dead, 1 Corinthians 15:12 whereas that would not be true, if there is no resurrection of the dead, 1 Corinthians 15:13 but that Christ is risen, is not only evident from the testimonies of eyewitnesses before produced, but from the absurdities that follow upon a denial of it, as that the preaching of the Gospel was a vain thing, and faith in it also, 1 Corinthians 15:14 yea, the apostles would be no other than false witnesses of God, testifying that he raised up Christ, when he is not risen, if the dead rise not, 1 Corinthians 15:15 which argument is repeated, 1 Corinthians 15:16 and other absurdities following such an hypothesis are added; as besides what was before mentioned, that faith becomes hereby a vain thing, such as have believed in him must be in an unregenerate state, and both under the power and guilt of sin, 1 Corinthians 15:17 nay, not only so, but such who are dead in Christ, or for his sake are lost and perished, 1 Corinthians 15:18 and even those of the saints who are alive must be the most unhappy and miserable of all mortals, 1 Corinthians 15:19. But inasmuch as it is a certain point that Christ is risen, it is as clear a case that the saints will rise, which is argued from Christ being the firstfruits of those that are fallen asleep in him, which secures their resurrection to them, 1 Corinthians 15:20 and from his being their covenant head, as Adam was to his posterity; so that as all his offspring died in him, all the saints will be quickened by Christ, death coming by the one, and the resurrection by the other, 1 Corinthians 15:21. And whereas it might be objected, if this is the case, why did not the saints, who were dead before the resurrection of Christ, rise from the dead when he did, or quickly after? To which it is answered, there is an order observed agreeable to the firstfruits and lump: Christ, the firstfruits, is first, and then they that believe in him, 1 Corinthians 15:23 and this will not be until the second coming of Christ, and the end of all things, when all the elect of God shall be gathered in; and then they will be raised and presented to the Father complete in soul and body, and all rule and authority among men will cease, 1 Corinthians 15:24. But in the mean while Christ must reign until all enemies are subject to him, and the last of all that will be destroyed by him is death; which is another argument proving the resurrection of the dead; for if death is destroyed, the dead must rise, and never die more, 1 Corinthians 15:25 That all things will be put under the feet of Christ, every enemy, and so death, is proved from a testimony out of Psalm 8:6. But to prevent a cavil, and secure the honour of God the Father, he is excepted from being subject to him, 1 Corinthians 15:27 so far is he from being so, that the Son shall be subject to him, and appear to be so as Mediator, by giving up the account of things to him; the end of which is, that God, Father, Son, and Spirit, may be all in all, 1 Corinthians 15:28. The resurrection of the dead is further argued from the sufferings of the saints and martyrs of Jesus, for the sake of him and his Gospel, and particularly this doctrine of it, which are first figuratively expressed under the notion of a baptism, 1 Corinthians 15:29 and then more literally and clearly signified by being in jeopardy, and exposed to danger of life continually, 1 Corinthians 15:30 and which is exemplified in the case of the apostle himself, who was liable to death daily, 1 Corinthians 15:31 of which he gives a particular instance in his fighting with beasts at Ephesus. Moreover, another absurdity would follow upon this, should this doctrine not be true; and that is, that a loose and licentious life, such an one as the Epicureans live, would be encouraged hereby, 1 Corinthians 15:32 from which the apostle dissuades; partly from the pernicious effect of it, which he shows by a passage cited out of one of the Heathens, 1 Corinthians 15:33 and partly from its being contrary to a righteous conversation, and from the stupidity, sinfulness, and ignorance, which such a course of life, upon such principles, declares, 1 Corinthians 15:34. And then the apostle proceeds to answer questions, and remove objections relating to the resurrection of the dead; which questions and objections are put, 1 Corinthians 15:35 which suppose the thing to be impossible and absurd, and to which answers are returned, first by observing, that grain which is sown in the earth first dies before it is quickened, and that it does not rise up bare grain as it was sown, but in a different form and shape, with additional circumstances greatly to its advantage; and has a body given by the power, and according to the pleasure of God, and suitable to the nature of the seed; by which is suggested, that in like manner the body first dies, and then is raised;, and though the same body, yet it is raised in a different form with different qualities, by the power, and according to the will of God; and therefore seeing there are every year such innumerable instances in nature, of dead and putrefied grain being revived, it need not be thought incredible, impracticable, and absurd, that God should raise the dead, 1 Corinthians 15:36 and that the body, though the same shall rise different from what it was when laid in the grave, is illustrated by the difference of flesh in men, beasts, fishes, and birds; which, though all of it flesh, differs from each other; and so will the flesh of the body, in the resurrection, differ from the flesh it is now clothed with, 1 Corinthians 15:39. And the same is further illustrated by the difference there is in the heavenly and earthly bodies, in the sun, and moon, and stars, and in one star from another; all which have respect to the same, showing not any difference there will be in risen bodies among themselves, but in risen bodies from what they now are, 1 Corinthians 15:40 as appears by the accommodation of these similes to the resurrection of the dead; and which differences are clearly expressed, the present bodies being corrupt, dishonourable, weak, and natural, the risen ones being incorruptible, glorious, powerful, and spiritual, 1 Corinthians 15:42. And that the risen bodies will be spiritual, the apostle proves, by comparing Adam and Christ together; the one had a natural body, the other had a spiritual body after his resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15:45 the order of which is given, the natural body of Adam was before the spiritual body of Christ, 1 Corinthians 15:46. Their original is also taken notice of, the one being of the earth, the other front heaven, 1 Corinthians 15:47 and so accordingly the offspring of the one, and of the other, are different; the offspring of the first Adam are earthly like him, and have a natural body, as he had; the offspring of the second Adam are heavenly, as he was, and will have a body like to his; for as they bear the image of the first man, from whom they naturally descend, by having a natural body like to his, so they must bear the image of the second man, the Lord from heaven, by having a spiritual body fashioned like to his glorious body, 1 Corinthians 15:48. And there is an absolute necessity for this, seeing bodies, in their present state, and case, as natural, mortal, and sinful, cannot be admitted into the possession of the kingdom and glory of the Lord, 1 Corinthians 15:50 but inasmuch as all will not die, and so be raised again, but some will be alive at the coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead, a difficulty arises how the living saints will come by spiritual bodies, in order to inherit the kingdom of God, without which they cannot inherit it: this difficulty the apostle removes, by making known a secret never divulged before, that at the same time the dead will be raised, which will be at the sounding of a trumpet; in a moment, at once the living saints will be changed, and become immortal and incorruptible, as the raised ones, 1 Corinthians 15:51 for so it must be that these corruptible and mortal bodies be clothed with incorruption and immortality, either by the resurrection of them, or a change upon them, when either way they will become spiritual, 1 Corinthians 15:53. And hereby some prophecies in Isaiah and Hoses will have their accomplishment, 1 Corinthians 15:54 on the mention of which, some things in them are explained, as that sin is the sting of death, and the law is the strength of sin, which regard the prophecy in Hosea, 1 Corinthians 15:56 and the victory obtained over death, which is mentioned in the prophecy of Isaiah, is ascribed to God, who gives it through Christ, to whom thanks are returned for it, 1 Corinthians 15:57. And the chapter is concluded with an exhortation steadfastly to abide by the cause of Christ, and in his service; to which the saints are encouraged from this consideration, that they will find their account in it, 1 Corinthians 15:58.

DIVISION V.: THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY. Some members of the Cor[2227] Church denied the resurrection of the dead (1 Corinthians 15:12), compelling the Ap. to enter on a systematic defence and exposition of this Christian doctrine. The question was not raised in the Church Letter; nor does Paul indicate the source of his information; the opinion of the τινὲς was openly expressed, and was doubtless matter of common report (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:1). Their position was incompatible with Christianity; it contravened, inferentially, the whole verity and saving worth of the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1 f., 1 Corinthians 15:13-19). Such scepticism nullified the faith and hope of the Church (1 Corinthians 15:11) as effectually as the party-divisions destroyed its love. While standing apart from the practical and personal questions upon which the Ep. turns (and accordingly reserved to the last), this doctrinal controversy has two important points of connexion with them, lying (1) in the differences of opinion prevalent at Cor[2228] (cf. 12, λέγουσιν ἐν ὑμῖν τινες, with ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε πάντες, 1 Corinthians 1:10), and (2) in the laxity of moral sentiment associated with Cor[2229] unbelief (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:32 ff. with 1 Corinthians 5:2, 1 Corinthians 6:8 f., 1 Corinthians 8:10, 1 Corinthians 10:14; 1 Corinthians 10:21 f., 1 Corinthians 11:21; 1 Corinthians 11:29 ff.). This latter trait identifies the doubters of the Resurrection with the men who justified antinomian tendencies by the assumption of superior “knowledge” (see notes on 1 Corinthians 6:12 and 1 Corinthians 8:1, etc.); affecting “the wisdom of this world,” they cherished the rooted prejudice of Greek culture, against the idea of a bodily redemption (see Introd., p. 732). To men of this way of thinking the Resurrection was a folly even more than the Cross; some of those who had overcome the latter offence, still stumbled at the former. Unbelief in the Resurrection was sure to be excited wherever the Gospel spread amongst educated Greeks; the Ap. feels that he must grapple boldly with this difficulty at its first appearance in the Church; he puts forth his full strength to conquer it and to commend the truth that was impugned to the intelligent Corinthians.—Sceptics as they are in regard to the general doctrine, the τινὲς do not question the personal resurrection of Jesus Christ (a circumstance of great apologetic value); the Apostle’s refutation starts from the assumption of this cardinal fact. They will not admit the recovery of the body as a part of the Christian salvation; they reject it as a principle, and a law of the kingdom of God. It was probably held that Christ’s rising from the dead was a unique, symbolical occurrence, bringing about for believers in Him a redemption wholly spiritual, a literal and full deliverance from the flesh and the world of matter.—Paul’s argument is in two parts: (A) 1 Corinthians 15:1-34, concerning the certainty; ([2230]) 1 Corinthians 15:35-57, concerning the nature of the Resurrection. To establish its certainty (A), P. begins by (a) rehearsing the historical evidence of Christ’s bodily resurrection, which had been preached by himself ἐν πρώτοις and so received by the readers (1 Corinthians 15:1-11); (b) he shows that to deny the resurrection of the dead is to deny Christ’s resurrection, and so to declare the Gospel witness false and its salvation illusive (1 Corinthians 15:12-19); and further, (c) that the risen Christ is the first-fruit of a great harvest, whose ingathering is essential to the fulfilment of the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:20-28); (d) he closes this part of the case by pointing to the practical results of faith or unbelief in a future resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:29-34). ([2231]) The nature of the resurrection body is (a) illustrated by the difference between the seed and the perfect plant; also by the endless variety of material forms, instanced in animal organisms and in the (heavenly bodies, which helps us to understand how there may be a future body of a Higher order than the present human frame (1 Corinthians 15:35-43). (b) This difference between the σῶμα πνευματικὸν and the σῶμα ψυχικὸν being premised, it is argued that our investiture with the former is as necessary a consequence of our relation to Christ as our investiture with the latter is a consequence of our relation to Adam (1 Corinthians 15:44-49). (c) Only by this transformation, by the victory over death and sin thus achieved, can tne promise of God in Scripture he fulfilled, His redeeming purpose effected, and the work of His servants made secure (1 Corinthians 15:51-58).—This is the earliest Christian doctrinal essay; in method and argumentative character it is akin to the Ep. to the Romans. Hn[2232] ably defends its integrity against the attempts of Clemen and the Dutch School to make out interpolations and contradictions.

[2227] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[2228] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[2229] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[2230] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.

[2231] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.

[2232] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklärung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).

CHAPTER 15

1 Corinthians 15:10. ἡ σὺν ἐμοί] Lachm. has merely σὺν ἐμοί, following B D* F G א* Vulg. It. Or. Ambrosiast. Aug. Rightly; the article was inserted, doubtless, in some cases in a mere mechanical way after ἡ εἰς ἐμέ, but in others purposely, in order to have a thoroughly complete contrast to οὐκ ἐγώ, at the suggestion of dogmatic interest, which also produced the weakly attested reading ἡ ἐν ἐμοί. The ἡ is wanting also before εἰς ἐμέ in D* F G, Vulg. It. and Latin Fathers. But here there was nothing in the context to occasion the insertion, and the article could be dispensed with, and was thus overlooked.—1 Corinthians 15:14. κενὴ καί] Elz., Scholz, Tisch. read κενὴ δὲ καί, against greatly preponderating testimony.—1 Corinthians 15:19. ἐν Χριστῷ] stands before ἠλπικότες in A B D* E F G א, min. Vulg. It. Goth. and several Fathers. So Lachm. Rück. Tisch. and rightly, for this position is not easier than that of the Recepta, and hence the great preponderance of the evidence is all the more decisive.—1 Corinthians 15:20. After κεκοιμ. Elz. has ἐγένετο, against decisive evidence; a supplementary addition.—1 Corinthians 15:21. ὁ θάνατος] The article is wanting in A B D* K א, Or. Dial. c. Marc. Cyr. Dam. al. Rightly deleted by Lachm. and Rück. From Romans 5:12.—1 Corinthians 15:24. Instead of the Recepta παραδῷ, which Reiche defends, B F G have παραδιδοῖ, and A D E א, min. Fathers παραδιδῷ; the former preferred by Lachm. and Tisch., the latter by Rück. Παραδιδῷ, or the παραδιδοῖ, which is likewise to be taken as a subjunctive form (there is no means of deciding between the two), is correct (see the exegetical remarks); ὄταν καταργήσῃ, however, made the aorist come very naturally to the transcribers, who did not apprehend the different relations of the two clauses.—1 Corinthians 15:25.

ἄν before θῇ (in Elz. and Scholz) is omitted in preponderant authorities, and has come in from the LXX. Psalm 110:1.—1 Corinthians 15:29. αὐτῶν] Elz. reads τῶν νεκρῶν, against decisive evidence; a correct gloss;—1 Corinthians 15:31. ὑμετέραν] A, min. Or. have ἡμετέραν. So Rück. But the former not being understood, the latter appeared to be required by ἣν ἔχω.

After καύχησιν Lachm. and Tisch. have ἀδελφοί, on the testimony of A B K א, min. vss. and Latin Fathers. Rightly; it is in keeping with the impassioned address, but was easily overlooked by the transcribers, since no new section of the address begins here (comp. on 1 Corinthians 11:2).—1 Corinthians 15:36. ἄφρον] Lachm. Rück. Tisch. read ἄφρων, following A B D E G א, min. The former is a correction.—1 Corinthians 15:39. Before ἀνθρώπων Elz. has σάρξ again, which is deleted by Griesb. and the later editors, in accordance with decisive evidenc.

ἰχθύων, ἄλλη δὲ πτηνῶν] A preponderance of authority—and this alone can decide here—has it in the inverse order πτηνῶν … ἰχθύων. So Rück., also Lachm. and Tisch., who, however, read σάρξ again before πτην., which has, it is true, important attestation, but is a mechanical addition. Paul repeated σάρξ in connection with the first kind of animals only, and so arranged his enumeration.—1 Corinthians 15:44. ἔστι σῶμα κ.τ.λ.] εἰ ἔστιν σῶμα ψ., ἔστιν καὶ πνευματ. occurs in A B C D* F G א, min., and several vss. And Fathers. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Rück. Tisch. And how easily the form of the preceding clauses might occasion the passing over of the εἰ, which, besides, was so exposed to omission from the way in which the following word begins (Ει Εστιν).—1 Corinthians 15:47. After ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρ. Elz. and Scholz have ὁ κύριος, in opposition to B C D* E F G א* 17, 67** and several vss. and Fathers. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. Rück. Tisch. A gloss. See Reiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 294 ff.—1 Corinthians 15:49. φορέσομεν] Lachm. reads φορέσωμεν, following A C D E F G K L א, and many min. Copt. Slav. Vulg. It. Goth. Theodot. Or. (ed. de la Rue) Method. Bas. Chrys. Cyr. Macar. Epiph. Damasc. Ir. Tert. Cypr. Hilar. Zeno, Ambrosiast. Jer. Pel. al. A great preponderance of testimony! Nevertheless, the very ancient Recepta still retains the important attestation of B and many min. Syr. utr. Arr. Aeth. Arm. Or. ed. Theodoret; Oec. and Theophyl. give and explain both readings. The Recepta is to be retained, because it is necessary in the connection (see the exegetical remarks); the subjunctive is unsuitable, but was easily brought into the text from the fact that σὰρξ κ. αἷμα in 1 Corinthians 15:50 was taken in the ethical sense (see especially Chrys.); as in the physical sense, indeed, it would have stood in opposition to the doctrine of the “resurrectio carnis.” Φορέσομεν was first of all interpreted as hortative (which interpretation Theodoret felt it necessary expressly to reject), and then the hortative form of the verb was inserted in the text.—1 Corinthians 15:50. κληρονομεῖ] Lachm. reads κληρονομήσει, following C* D* F G, Vulg. It. and Latin Fathers. Occasioned by the similarity of sound of the preceding κληρονομῆσαι.—1 Corinthians 15:51.[21] ΠΆΝΤΕς ΜῈΝ … ἈΛΛΑΓ.] Lachm. reads ΠΆΝΤΕς [ΜῈΝ] ΚΟΙΜΗΘ., Οὐ ΠΆΝΤΕς ΔῈ ἈΛΛΑΓ. Altogether there are many variations, but all of them arose from the offence which was taken, in connection with the reading of the text, at the idea of Paul and his readers having all of them undergone death. The Recepta occurs in B (which merely omits μέν) D** E K L and almost all min. codd. in Jer. al. Goth. Syr. utr. Copt. Aeth. Arr. and many Fathers, an attestation which, considering how the readings otherwise vary, is a very strong one, although among the uncials C G א support Lachm.—1 Corinthians 15:54. Both the omission of the first part of the protasis (in א* also) and the transposition of the two clauses are insufficiently attested, and are to be explained from the homoeoteleuta.—1 Corinthians 15:55. ΝῖΚΟς is put first and ΚΈΝΤΡΟΝ last by B C J א, 17, 64, 71, Copt. Aeth. Arm. Slav. ms. Vulg. and several Fathers. So Lachm. Rück. But they are evidently transposed, after the LXX. in Hosea 13:14.

Instead of ᾍΔΗ, B C D E F G J א* 39, 67** and several vss. and Fathers have ΘΆΝΑΤΕ again. So Lachm. Rück. Tisch.; and rightly, for ᾍΔΗ has come in from the LXX.

[21] See on the passage Reiche, Comment. crit. I. p. 297 ff., who defends the Recepta with thoroughness and triumphant success. Tischendorf also has retained it, deleting only the μέν (which is certainly open to the suspicion of being an addition).

CONTENTS.[22]

Disquisition on the resurrection of the dead, occasioned by the deniers of it in Corinth (1 Corinthians 15:12). That these deniers had been formerly Sadducees, and had brought forward again their Sadducean views in connection with Christianity (so recently Flatt, following Heumann, Michaelis, Storr, Knapp; and comp. earlier, Calvin, and Lightfoot, Chron. p. 110) is not to be assumed, partly because, in general, Sadduceism and Christianity are too much antagonistic in their nature to mingle with each other, and also because in that case Paul could not have based his refutation upon the resurrection of Christ (Acts 4:2). Nor is it more probable that the opponents had been Epicureans, for it is plain from 1 Corinthians 15:32-34 that the Epicurean turn which they had taken was not the ground, but the consequence of their denial of the resurrection; as, indeed, Epicureanism in general is such an antichristian element that, supposing it had been the source of the denial, Paul would certainly have entered upon a discussion of its principles, in so far as they were opposed to faith in the resurrection. It is certain at the same time that the deniers were not Jewish Christians; for with them the belief in the Messiah stood in the most necessary connection with the belief in the resurrection; comp. Acts 23:6. On the contrary, it must have been Gentile Christians (Baur, de Wette, van Hengel, Ewald, and many others) to whom the resurrection seemed impossible, and who therefore (1 Corinthians 15:35-36) denied it. And it is probable, at all events, that they were persons of philosophical training (Beza, Grotius, Estius, and others, including Ziegler, theol. Abh. II. p. 35 f., Neander, Olshausen, Osiander; Rückert is undecided), because they must in asserting their thesis, ὅτι ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔστιν, have caused some sensation, which, in such a place as Corinth, is hardly conceivable on the part of men strangers to any degree of philosophical education and practice in dialectics; and because the anti-materialistic explanation of the matter, which Paul gives to combat the doubts of his opponents (1 Corinthians 15:35 ff.), makes it probable that the antagonism on the part of the sceptics was a spiritualistic one, i.e. an antagonism resting on the philosophic ground that the restoration of the matter of the body was impossible. That the apostle does not contend at the same time against the world’s wisdom in general (a doubt expressed by de Wette) is the less strange, as he has to do now with a special subject, and has also already delivered a general polemic of this nature, chap. 1 Corinthians 2:3. The small number, however, of men philosophically trained (1 Corinthians 1:26) permits of no further inference than that the sceptics in question also were not numerous (τινές, 1 Corinthians 15:12). In Athens, too (Acts 17:32), the resurrection of the dead was the stone of stumbling for philosophic culture; and how often has it been so since, and even to the present day!

But to which of the four parties in Corinth did these deniers belong? That they were not of the Petrine or Judaistic party is self-evident. Neither were they of the Christ-party (as Neander, Olshausen, Jäger, and Goldhorn hold them to have been), for Christ has so often and so distinctly taught the doctrine of resurrection of the body, that the denial of it would have been at the most palpable variance with the ἐγὼ Χριστοῦ εἶμι. Nor yet were they of the party of Paul, seeing that the doctrine of the resurrection was a most essential article of the Pauline Gospel. There remains, therefore, only the party of Apollos (so also Räbiger and Maier), some of whom having been converted, doubtless, only after the apostle had ceased to labour in Corinth, or having come thither subsequently from other quarters, may have found what he had taught in Corinth regarding the resurrection of the dead not compatible with their philosophical standpoint, and hence—being the more incited to it, perhaps, through party variance—altogether denied that there was a resurrection of the dead.[23] Only we must not take this to mean that the adherents of Apollos as such—their party as such—had denied the resurrection, and that accordingly this denial formed part of their party principles,[24] but only that the “some” (1 Corinthians 15:12) were preponderantly from the number of those who had attached themselves to Apollos and to the party named after him. Of the idea that the denial was a party matter, there is not only no trace whatever in the treatment of the subject, but it would also conflict with what is a necessary presupposition, namely, that the Christianity of the Apollos-party as such cannot have stood in such an essential and real contradiction in point of doctrine to that of Paul. We may add that the denial in question is not to be regarded as a theory, such as we find in 2 Timothy 2:17 f., in the case of Hymenaeus and Philetus, who understood the doctrine allegorically, and maintained that the resurrection had already taken place. So, following Chrysostom, Grotius, Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 362, Billroth, and Olshausen. The whole elaborate treatment of the subject does not show the slightest trace of this (see, on the contrary, especially 1 Corinthians 15:12), although the main aim in that case would have been to prove that the resurrection was not a thing past, but something future.

[22] See regarding the whole chapter, W. A. van Hengel, Commentar. perpet. in 1 Cor. xv. cum epistola ad Winerum, Sylvae ducis, 1851; Krauss, theol. Kommentar z. 1 Kor. XV., Frauenfeld 1864 (who stands, however, in express antagonism to grammatico-historical exegesis). Comp. also Klöpper, zur paulin. Lehre v. d. Aufersteh. in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1862, p. 1 ff.

[23] That they denied also the continued life of the spirit after death, which Calvin expressly leaves undecided, cannot be maintained, with Flatt and others, from passages such as vv. 19, 29, 30–32, 58. On the contrary, these passages show merely this, that Paul attached no value to the continued life of the souls in Hades, regarded in itself, and not ended by the resurrection. It was to him a vita non vitalis (comp. Kling in the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 502), and the true everlasting ζωή was conditioned for him by the near Parousia and resurrection. This, at the same time, serves to correct what is asserted by Rückert and others, that in Paul’s mind, as in that of the Jews and Pharisees, the ideas of continued existence and of resurrection were so blended into each other, that whoever denied the one seemed not to be capable of holding fast the other. According to Php 1:21; Php 1:23 (comp. also 2 Corinthians 5:8; Acts 7:59), Paul has the conviction that if he should die as a martyr, he would pass, not into Hades, but to Christ in heaven, into a blessed intermediate state until the resurrection of the body. See on Phil. l.c.

[24] Comp. also Krauss, p. 12.

고전 15:1-58.

고린도에서 부활을 부인하는 자들에 맞서 부활이 입증됨.

그리스도의 부활은 바울 자신을 포함한 많은 목격자의 증거 위에 서 있으며, 복음의 기초로 전파된 위대한 사실이다. 일반적인 부활을 부인하는 자들은 그리스도의 부활도 부인해야 하며, 그렇게 되면 그리스도인의 전파와 믿음은 헛것이 된다.

1. 더욱이--"이제"[ALFORD와 ELLICOTT].

알게 하노니--문자적으로는 "내가 알린다"이다. 그들 가운데 어떤 이들이 "하나님을 아는 지식이 없었기" 때문에(고전 15:34) 이제 다시 그들에게 알려야 하는 데에는 어느 정도 책망의 뜻이 담겨 있다. 비교 갈 1:11.

너희가 그 가운데 선 것이라--너희가 지금 그 위에 서 있는 바이다. 너희가 이 높은 자리에서 떨어지도록 자신을 내버려 두지 않는다면, 이것이 너희의 현재 실제 특권이다.