Comentários bíblicos

In this chapter the apostle treats of that great article of Christianity—the resurrection of the dead. I. He establishes the certainty of our Saviour's resurrection, 1Co 15:1-11. II. He, from this truth, sets himself to refute those who said, There is no resurrection of the dead, 1Co 15:12-19. III. From our Saviour's resurrection he establishes the resurrection of the dead and confirms the Corinthians in the belief of it by some other considerations, 1Co 15:20-34. IV. He answers an objection against this truth, and takes occasion thence to show what a vast change will be made in the bodies of believers at the resurrection, 1Co 15:35-50. V. He informs us what a change will be made in those who shall be living at the sound of the last trumpet, and the complete conquest the just shall then obtain over death and the grave, 1Co 15:51-57. And, VI. He sums up the argument with a very serious exhortation to Christians, to be resolved and diligent in their Lord's service, because they know they shall be so gloriously rewarded by him, 1Co 15:58.

This important and deeply interesting chapter, I have spoken of as the "third" part of the Epistle. See the introduction. It is more important than any other portion of the Epistle, as it contains a connected, and labored, and unanswerable argument for the main truth of Christianity, and, consequently, of Christianity itself; and it is more interesting to us as mortal beings, and as having an instinctive dread of death, than any other portion of the Epistle. It has always, therefore, been regarded with deep interest by expositors, and it is worthy of the deepest attention of all. If the argument in this chapter is solid, then Christianity is true; and if true, then this chapter unfolds to us the most elevated and glorious prospect which can be exhibited to dying, yet immortal man.

There were, probably, two reasons why the apostle introduced here this discussion about the resurrection:

First, it was desirable to introduce a condensed and connected statement of the main argument for the truth of Christianity. The Corinthians had been perplexed with subtle questions, and torn by sects and parties, and it was possible that in their zeal for sect and party, they would lose their hold on this great and vital argument for the truth of religion itself. It might. be further apprehended, that the enemies of the gospel, from seeing the divisions and strifes which existed there, would take advantage of these contentions, and say that a religion which produced such fruits could not be from God. It was important, therefore, that they should have access to an argument plain, clear, and unanswerable, for the truth of Christianity; and that thus the evil effects of their divisions and strifes might be counteracted.

Secondly. It is evident from 1 Corinthians 15:12, that the important doctrine of the resurrection of the dead had been denied at Corinth, and that this error had obtained a footing in the church itself. On what grounds, or by what portion or party it was denied is unknown. It may have been that the influence of some Sadducean teacher may have led to the rejection of the doctrine; or it may have been the effect of philosophy. From Acts 17:32, we know that among some of the Greeks, the doctrine of the resurrection was regarded as ridiculous; and from 2 Timothy 2:18, we learn that it was held by some that the resurrection was passed already, and, consequently, that there was nothing but a spiritual resurrection. To counteract these errors, and to put the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead on a firm foundation, and thus to furnish a demonstration of the truth of Christianity, was the design of this chapter.

The chapter may be regarded as divided into four parts, and four questions in regard to the resurrection are solved:

1. Whether there is any resurrection of the dead? 1Co. 15:1-34.

2. With what body will the dead rise? 1Co. 15:35-51.

3. What will become of those who shall be alive when the Lord Jesus shall come to judge the world? 1 Corinthians 15:51-54.

4. What are the practical bearings of this doctrine? 1 Corinthians 15:55-58.

I. The dead will be raised; 1Co. 15:1-34. This Paul proves by the following arguments, and illustrates in the following manner:

(1) By adducing reasons to show that Christ rose from the dead; 1 Corinthians 15:1-11;

(a) From the Scripture; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

(b) From the testimony of eyewitnesses; 1 Corinthians 15:5-11.

(2) by showing the absurdity of the contrary doctrine; 1Co. 15:12-34:

(a) If the dead do not rise, it would follow that Christ has not risen; 1 Corinthians 15:13.

(b) If Christ is not risen, he is preached in vain, and faith is reposed in him for nothing; 1 Corinthians 15:14.

(c) It would follow that the apostles would be false witnesses and wicked people; whereas, the Corinthians had abundant reason to know the contrary;

(d) The faith of the Corinthians must be vain if he was not risen, and they must regard themselves as still unpardoned sinners, since all their hope of pardon must arise from the fact that his work was accepted, and that he was raised up; 1 Corinthians 15:16-17.

(e) If Christ was not risen, then all their pious friends who had believed in him must be regarded as lost; 1 Corinthians 15:18.

(f) It would follow that believers in Christ would be in a more miserable condition than any others, if there was no resurrection; 1 Corinthians 15:19.

(g) Baptism for the resurrection of the dead would be absurd and in vain, unless the dead arose; it would be vain to be baptized with the belief, and on the ground of the belief that Christ rose, and on the ground of the hope that they would rise; 1 Corinthians 15:29.

(h) It would be in vain that the apostles and others had suffered so many toils and persecutions, unless the dead should rise; 1 Corinthians 15:30-32.

In the course of this part of his argument 1 Corinthians 15:20-28 Paul introduces an "illustration" of the doctrine, or a statement of an important fact in regard to it, thus "separating" the argument in 1 Corinthians 15:19 from the next, which occurs in 1 Corinthians 15:29. Such interruptions of a train of thinking are not uncommon in the writings of Paul, and indicate the "fullness" and "richness" of his conceptions, when some striking thought occurs, or some plausible objection is to be met, and when he suspends his argument in order to state it. This interjected portion consists of the following items:

(1) A triumphant and joyful assurance that Christ "had in fact risen;" as if his mind was full, and he was impatient of the delay caused by the necessity of slow argumentation; 1 Corinthians 15:19-20.

(2) he "illustrates" the doctrine, or shows that it is "reasonable" that the certainty of the resurrection should be demonstrated by one in human nature, since death had been introduced by man; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22. This is an argument from "analogy," drawn from the obvious propriety of the doctrine that man should be raised up in a manner somewhat similar to the mode in which he had been involved in ruin.

(3) he states the "order" in which all this should be done; 1 Corinthians 15:23-28. It is possible that some may have held that the resurrection must have been already passed, since it depended so entirely and so closely on the resurrection of Christ; compare 2 Timothy 2:18. Paul, therefore, meets this objection; and shows that it must take place in a regular order; that Christ rose first, and that they who were his friends should rise at his coming. He then states what would take place at that time, when the work of redemption should have been consummated by the resurrection of the dead, and the entire recovery of all the redeemed to God, and the subjection of every foe.

II. What will be the nature of the bodies that shall be raised up? 1Co. 15:35-51.

This inquiry is illustrated:

(1) By a reference to grain that is sown; -1 1 Corinthians 15:36-38.

(2) by a reference to the fact that there are different kinds of flesh; 1 Corinthians 15:39.

(3) by a reference to the fact that there are celestial bodies and earthly bodies; 1 Corinthians 15:40.

(4) by the fact that there is a difference between the sun, and moon, and stars; 1 Corinthians 15:41,

(5) By a "direct statement," for which the mind is prepared by these illustrations, of the important changes which the body of man must undergo, and of the nature of that body which he will have in heaven; -1 1 Corinthians 15:42-50. It is:

(a) Incorruptible; 1 Corinthians 15:42.

(b) Glorious; 1 Corinthians 15:43,

(c) Powerful; 1 Corinthians 15:43.

(d) A spiritual body; 1 Corinthians 15:44.

(e) It is like the body of the second man, the Lord from heaven; 1 Corinthians 15:45-50.

III. What will become of those who shall be alive when the Lord Jesus shall return to raise the dead?

Answer: They shall be changed instantly, and suited for heaven, and made like the glorified saints that shall be raised from the dead; 1 Corinthians 15:51-54.

IV. The practical consequences or influences of this doctrine; 1 Corinthians 15:55-58;

(1) The doctrine is glorious and triumphant; it overcame all the evils of sin, and should fill the mind with joy; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57.

(2) It should lead Christians to diligence, and firmness of faith, and patience, since their labor was not to be in vain; 1 Corinthians 15:58.

The Gospel which the apostle preached to the Corinthians; viz. that Christ died for our sins, and rose again the third day, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. The witnesses of his resurrection, Peter, James, and more than five hundred brethren, 1 Corinthians 15:5-7. Lastly, Paul himself saw him, and was called by him to the apostleship, 1 Corinthians 15:8-11. Objections against the resurrection of the dead answered, vv. 12-34. The manner in which this great work shall be performed, 1 Corinthians 15:35-49. The astonishing events that shall take place in the last day, 1 Corinthians 15:50-57. The use we should make of this doctrine, 1 Corinthians 15:58.

It appears from this chapter that there were some false apostles at Corinth, who denied the resurrection, see 1 Corinthians 15:12; in consequence of which St. Paul discusses three questions in this chapter: -

1. Whether there be a resurrection of the dead? 1 Corinthians 15:1-35.

2. What will be the nature of the resurrection bodies? 1 Corinthians 15:35-51.

3. What should become of those who should be found alive in the day of judgment? 1 Corinthians 15:51-57.

I. The resurrection he proves,

1. From Scripture, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

2. From eye witnesses, 1 Corinthians 15:5-12.

II. He proves the resurrection by showing the absurdity of the contrary doctrine: -

1. If the dead rise not, Christ is not risen, 1 Corinthians 15:13.

2. It would be absurd to have faith in Him, according to the preaching of the Gospel, if he be not risen, 1 Corinthians 15:14.

3. The apostles must be false witnesses who attest this resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15:15.

4. The faith of the Corinthians must be vain who believe it, 1 Corinthians 15:16, 1 Corinthians 15:17.

5. All the believers who have died in the faith of Christ have perished, if Christ be not risen, 1 Corinthians 15:18.

6. Believers in Christ are in a more miserable state than any others, if there be no resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15:19.

7. Those who were baptized in the faith that Christ died for them and rose again, are deceived, 1 Corinthians 15:29.

8. The apostles, and Christians in general, who suffer persecution on the ground that, after suffering awhile here they shall have a glorious resurrection, are acting a foolish and unprofitable part, 1 Corinthians 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.

1Co 15:1-58.

THE RESURRECTION PROVED AGAINST THE DENIERS OF IT AT CORINTH.

Christ's resurrection rests on the evidence of many eye-witnesses, including Paul himself, and is the great fact preached as the groundwork of the Gospel: they who deny the resurrection in general, must deny that of Christ, and the consequence of the latter will be, that Christian preaching and faith are vain.

1. Moreover--"Now" [ALFORD and ELLICOTT].

I declare--literally, "I make known": it implies some degree of reproach that it should be now necessary to make it known to them afresh, owing to some of them "not having the knowledge of God"

(1Co 15:34).

Compare

Ga 1:11.

wherein ye stand--wherein ye now take your stand. This is your present actual privilege, if ye suffer not yourselves to fall from your high standing.