Sivut kuvina

adopt it. Billroth remarks indeed, that the meaning of the first verses will be wholly disfigured by the common and obvious mode of construction. It may be shown, however, that this is not the case. We accordingly connect together the words “I now call your attention to the Gospel, etc.' The usual meaning of Żyogijo is “to make known. But Paul could not have now, for the first time, imparted to them the knowledge of that with which they had been long acquainted, and hence the common explanation of the verb ‘to remind,” “to call to remembrance.” Since, however, it neither has nor can have this meaning, while Paul elsewhere makes use of the phrase in transitions as synonymous with the expression, ‘I do not wish to have you ignorant,” I choose instead of attaching to it a new signification, rather to acquiesce in the more general sense, ‘I call your attention to.' The Gospel which he had preached to them, as explained by himself in the third and subsequent verses, was the knowledge of the death and resurrection of Christ. To what the Gospel thus contained, namely, to the fact that the Gospel which they had heard and received related to the death and resurrection of Jesus, he now invites their attention, in order that they might remember that to this, with all its consequences, including the doctrine of a general resurrection, they must either adhere, or else cease to be Christians; because, as he maintained, the denial of the resurrection of the dead would result in a denial of the resurrection of Christ, and of the redemption accomplished by him. He now makes the preliminary remark, that they would not renounce the name of Christians, they would not abjure the Gospel. Therefore he hopes that the more he could impress upon their hearts the relation in which they stood to the Gospel, the more certainly he should attain his object. This appears in the subsequent position, namely, “which ye have received.” The addition is important. He had not only announced the truth, but they had received it thus; they had acknowledged it as true. They would not now resort to the subterfuge of pretending that they had not understood it, or that they had not originally believed it. ‘In which ye also stand.”—He now advances 'yogito outr to stayy. 2.1.2. * In which case we are not to press the meaning of particular words too closely. * The verb has a like meaning in John 1: 11, ‘ his own received him not.’ a step higher. The Corinthians had not merely heard the Gospel; they had not simply received it; they also stood in it, that is, they adhered firmly to a belief of it; they were still Christians; they had not yet rejected the Gospel." The remark is not intended to flatter or delude them, because all to whom he wrote, firmly believed the doctrine that Christ died and rose again. Otherwise, he could by no means have built an argument upon it, as he has done in verses 13, 16, 20. All, however, had not drawn the same conclusion in respect to a resurrection strictly considered as he had. But this consequently was to be believed, and he employs it in order to lay as firm a foundation as possible for his subsequent reasoning. “By which also ye are saved.” This is the highest point in the climax. Thereby they obtain salvation.” The apostle now subjoins a condition in the words “if ye hold fast the declaration which I made known to you.” If we take these words together, as most preceding commentators have done, we must recognize a transposition, by which the object is placed before the verb, a circumstance not by any means impossible.” The word zal systv means ‘to hold fast.” An indirect question being implied, this firm adherence must relate rather to the memory than to the convictions of the mind. The apostle cannot, however, be nat- urally supposed to make any wide distinction. Rather a certain fulness of meaning is to be attached to the verb, including both a remembrance of what had been delivered to them, and a true, inward adherence to the object of their recollection. He uses si and not av because he does not intend to represent the thing as problematical and possible, but as certain and real. We rightly translate tive 2070, ‘in which discourse or declaration, not ‘in which word;

* It is clear that the Perfect tense does not point, as some think, to a past time.

* Many suppose, but not correctly, that the Present tense is here used for the future. This would be the case only when ovo, a pointed to nothing but to the attainment of future eternal happiness. But as it is an expression for salvation, as a whole, and while this relates to a continued process, as well to what has been already gained as to what is to be yet hoped for, so, according as the thing is presented in each particular instance, the Present tense may be as appropriately employed, as the Perfect in Eph. 2:58, or the Aoristin Roun. 8:24.

* tir. 24;"-zai Zett.

* On the other hand, if we connect these words with y, cotto v. 1, then zar, Zo is would stand by itself, to which Paul would have certainly added aw to. • I Cor. 11: 3

or, if we take the Dative in a causal sense, “on account of which declaration,” that is, “on which ground or reason.” The words have the latter signification in Acts 10: 29, and thus Kypke interprets them here. But this is impossible, because there is no reference to the ground or reason which had induced the apostle to announce his message. We are to understand here the theme of his preaching, thus “if ye possess and hold fast what I announced unto you as the Gospel.” To this adherence to the word preached, and indeed to all included under it, they must stand firm. There was to be no narrowing down or mutilation, which some individuals endeavored to effect. In these circumstances, when he felt constrained to awaken their attention, it was very proper to assure them that they could not attain the salvation, which he had declared to them as the fruit of the Gospel, and which unquestionably they still expected to enjoy, if they did not comply with this condition. I therefore see no reason at all, why this interpretation of the words should disfigure the thought—Unless ye have believed in vain. The meaning of six is “rashly,” “without ground.’ The entire point will be elucidated in the course of the subsequent reasoning, where the apostle shows that if there be no resurrection of the dead, then preaching and faith are vain, and salvation is impossible.* Looking forward to this position, he here subjoins a remark entirely incidental but not without severity, and which stands in connection with the clause ‘by which ye shall be saved, if ye hold fast,' etc. “In attaining salvation through the Gospel, it is an implied point that you remain true to whatever it contains.” As if recollecting himself, and intending to explain what he had before said, he adds, in an ironical manner, “It would be somewhat thus, ye would have believed without good reason, if they are in the right, who by subverting the belief in a resurrection, would make the whole Gospel a fable.”

V. 3, 4. For I delivered to you among the first what I even received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures.

"The pleonasm lying in extos to wo, has been remarked upon in 1 Cor. 14. 5. In respect to the present passage, Kypke has collected ten like instances from Lucian.

* Comp. verses 14, 17, seq.

These verses contain a summary of the contents of the Gospel which had been preached to the Corinthians. “I delivered what I received.” He had received the historical fact perhaps only by tradition, while the import of it was indeed “by the revelation of Jesus Christ." What had been entrusted to him, he communicated to them, and that too “among the first.” If ngorous is in the neuter gender, the phrase shows that the death and resurrection of Jesus was one of the first topics which he communicated to them. Accordingly it would seem to follow, that he considered it as the most important doctrine, the fundamental principle of the whole Christian system. On this supposition, the difficulty which I have experienced entirely disappears,” and it is remarkable that in my manifold consideration of the passage, this signification of it did not occur to me. I will not pronounce it a false exposition, / but yet it ill accords with my feelings.” Paul does not delay long in mentioning the death of Christ. It was enough here to indicate it as having happened, though he subjoins, without explanation, two qualifying clauses. First, “he died for our sins.” This he deemed necessary, because he had awakened in them the feeling that they were no longer in their sins, verses 4, 17. Secondly, it was ‘according to the Scriptures,’ that is, it was in close correspondence with, and a fulfilment of the predictions which the Old Testament contained respecting the death of Christ. It is well known how often in the Gospels, Christ referred to the fact that the Scriptures would be only fulfilled by his sufferings and death. That there must have been many indications of this sort is clear.” Paul, as we see, does not name the passage to which he resers. One naturally \ thinks of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. The assertion might have appeared important to the apostle in so far as it was a testimony, not to the event itself which was undoubted, but to the importance of it, since an antecedent announcement had been made in the writings 2 of the Old Testament which were regarded as sacred. The mention of the burial of Jesus may have been intended to show that he actually died, and to remove the cavil that possibly he was not truly dead, and so could not have been raised to life, but was resuscitated from a condition resembling death. Everything, however, which befals the literally dead had befallen him. His body was laid in the tomb, and was there confined three days. Finally his resurrection \ was according to the Scriptures. W. 5–7. And that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve, then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the # greater part remain to this present time, though some are fallen asleep; then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

* Gal. 1: 12.

* Chrysostom explains or zigg, tors of time, “at first,’ ‘in the beginning,' &Qz, c, ot' rúr.

* See Note B, at the end of this Article.

• Partly on the ground of the proximity of the word outr, and partly, as it appears to me, if this sense had been intended, it would have been written 1 or to a Qoror.

* Luke 24; 25–27.

A confirmation of the fact from the instances of his appearance after he arose. Here is not the place to institute a strict comparison of the occurrences which in this passage are barely mentioned with those recorded in the Gospels, or to investigate how far they do, or do not, harmonize. A few words must suffice. ‘He was seen of Cephas.” This is nowhere else mentioned, with the exception of Luke 24:34, and there only in a word. “Then of the twelve.” From the use of the adverb ‘then, it might seem that the appearances are mamed in the order of time, so far as Paul was made acquainted with it. But how perfectly such knowledge was possessed by him, or whether it was actually possessed by any other one, can never be determined. The mention of the “twelve” has occasioned some attempts to introduce Matthias. It has been long acknowledged, however, that the apostles are here alone referred to, though but eleven in number; or but ten if there be an allusion to the narrative in John 20:19, 23. They are called ‘the twelve' with the same propriety as the terms decemviri, centumviri are employed, or 1as Xenophon mentions ‘the thirty” after the death of Critias. It is, lin a sense, the title of their office. ‘Of above five hundred brethren at once.” The adverb ‘above' is equivalent to “more than' as used in Mark 14: 5.” “Brethren,” means the same with ‘disciples” as

* He might have referred to Ps. 16. 10. Is. 53: 10.

* See oriarc, Mark 14: 5. The construction in which a case connected with a verb stands instead of a Genitive which should be used is common in Latin numerals. In Greek, definite examples of it are wanting. Those mentioned in Matthiae Sect. 455. 4. are insufficient. * was oral.

« EdellinenJatka »