XV. 1—2, ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOY= A 917 e
a , 4 ε ” , κ bis 2b ii XV. 1. "Γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ "εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισά- αὶ See Bae
µην ὑμῖν, ™O 3 καὶ °mapehaBete, ἐν ™E "' καὶ ' ἑστήκατε, 2. δι οὗ ο. γαρ ο μ. ͵ μα fa >t 2 PE eS ree καὶ "σώζεσθε: tive λόγω “ednyyedtodpyy ὑμῖν, εἰ “xaréxete, "ἐκτὸς τοι 19, ii. 10; Acts xiii. 32. c See xi. 23. d Rom. v. 2; Col. iv. 12; Jo. viii. 44; cf. 2 Cor. i. 24. ας. see i. 18; also, beside ptpl. use, Heb. v. 7, vii. 25; 1 Pet. iii. ατ, iv. 18; Jude 23; Acts xxvii. 20,
f See xi. 2. g See xiv. 5.
dos esse censeo’’ (Est.)—a counsel of despair; contrast 2 Tim. ii. 24 ff.
Vv. 39, 40 restate the advice of ver. 1 in the light of the subsequent discussion, moderating the Church’s zeal for de- monstrative charisms by insisting on the seemliness and good order which had been violated by their unrestrained exer- cise (26-33). ‘‘And so, my brothers, covet to prophesy”: ζηλοῦτε, cf. xii. 31 ; τὸ προφητεύειν replaces by the regular inf. the telic ἵνα προφητεύητε of ver. 1 (see ποῖθ).---καὶ τὸ λαλεῖν μὴ κωλύετε γλώσσαις, “and the speaking with tongues do not hinder’’; this is to be allowed in the Church, but not encour- aged like Prophecy, of course with the proviso that the Tongue has its inter- preter (13, 28). For ὥστε with impv., see iv. 5, etc.—mdvra δὲ γινέσθω: “ But let all things be carried on, etc.”: the δὲ attaches this caution specially to ver. 39; zeal for Prophecy and permission of Glossolalia must be guarded by the ob- servance at all points of decorum and discipline.—etoxnpdoves (see parls., and note on vil. 35), honeste (Vg.) or decenter ; North. Eng. mensefully (cf. Eph. iv. 1, v. 4, and 33 above)—a sort of ‘ethical enhancement of the more mechanical κατὰ tag’ (El.). Onthe latter expres- sion, opp. of ἀτάκτως, cf. 2 Thess. iii. 6 f., also xi. 346 above: the Cor. would interpret it by P.’s previous instructions— his παραδόσεις, ἐντολαί, ὁδοὶ ἐν Χριστῷ —and those given in this Ep.—eivoyn- µόνως demands a right Christian taste and deportment, κατὰ τάξιν a strict Christian method and rule of procedure.
Division V.: THE RESURRECTION OF THE Bopy, CHAP. xv. Some members of the Cor. Church denied the resurrec- tion of the dead (12), compelling the Ap. to enter on a systematic defence and ex- position 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. v. 1). Their position was incompatible with Christianity; it contravened, in-
ferentially, the whole verity and saving worth of the Gospel (1 f., 13-19). Such scepticism nullified the faith and hope of the Church (11) as effectually as the party-divisions destroyedits 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. (cf. 12, λέγουσιν ἐν ὑμῖν τινες, with ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε πάντες, i. 10), and (2) in the laxity of moral sentiment associated with Cor. unbelief (cf. 32 ff. with v. 2, Vie 8 £5, Vill. LO, κ. τά, 2τε, αι. στ. 20 8]. This latter trait identifies the doubters of the Resurrection with the men who justi- fied antinomian tendencies by the as- sumption of superior ‘‘ knowledge’’ (see notes On vi. 12 and viii. 1, etc.); affect- ing ‘‘the wisdom of this world,” they cherished the rooted prejudice of Greek culture, against the idea of a bodily re- demption (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 re- gard to the general doctrine, the τιγὲς do not question the personal resurrection of Jesus Christ (a circumstance of great apologetic value); the Apostle’s refuta- tion 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, sym- bolical occurrence, bringing about for be- lievers in Him a redemption wholly spiri- tual, a literal and full deliverance from the