919
Jas. ii. 8. γραφαι, om. i. 2, XV. 43 2 Pet. iii.
Serr. relevant in (1): Ps. xxi., Isa. liii., Zech. xiii. 7, Dan. ix. 24,
etc. ; in (2), Ps. xv. το, Isa. xxv. 7 Ε., liii. 9 f., Hos. vi. 2; Jonah i. 17 (see Mt. xii. 40), etc. q Rom. vi. 4 (συνεταφηµεν); Mt. viii. 21 f.; Lk. xvi. 22; Acts ii. 29, v. 6, 9 f.; Gen. xxili. 4. r Vv. 13 ff.3 see vi. 14. For pf. pass., outside this ch.; 2 Tim. ii. 8; Mk. vi. τν 5 Mt. xii. 40, xvii. 23, xx. 19, xxvi. 61, xxvii. 40, 63; Lk. xiii. 32, xxiv. 7, 21, 46; John ii. 19 f. t In this tense, 1 Tim. iii,
16; Rev. xi. το, xii. 1, 3; freq. in Acts ; Mt. xvii. 3 ; Lk. i. 11, xxii. 43, xxiv. 34. C/.ix.1,
u See ix. 5.
ten neepe τῃτριτῃ: ABD, 17, 37.
Gd., Bt., ΕΙ., Sm., Wr., Bm.). There are convincing objections to both views, advanced by Mr. and El. against (a), and by Ed. and Hn. against (0): beside the harsh inversion it requires, (b) leaves the interrog. tive (the instances of τίς for ὃς, with ἔχω, adduced in Bm.’s Grammar are not really parl.), and the substitution of λόγος for εὐαγγέλιον, unexplained. Pre- ferring therefore construction (a), one feels that at this distance the tive λόγῳ clause practically detaches itself from γνωρίζω (Hf.); the Ap. restates τὸ evay- γέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν in the altered shape of a challenge to the memory and faith of his readers—an interrogation prompted by the misgiving expressed directly afterwards in et κατέ- χετε: “In what word (I ask) did I preach (it) to you ?—(you will remember) if you are holding (it) fast !—unless you believed idly!” The λόγος is ‘‘the word of the gospel” (Acts xv. 7; cf. Eph. i. 13, Col. i. 5), ‘‘ the story of the cross,’’ etc. (i. 17), as told by P.—quo sermone (Bz.); not qua ratione (Vg.); nor quo pacto (Er., Cy.). Can it be that the Cor. have let this slip? or did they believe it εἰκῇ-- ποί frustra, in vain (so Vg., and most others, as in Gal. iii. 4), butinthe common cl. sense of εἰκῇ, temere (cf. Rom. xiii. 4, Col. ii. 18), heedlessly, at random, without serious apprehension, without realising the facts involved. The self-contradiction of the τινὲς (12) shows levity of belief. For ἐκτὸς εἰ μἡ, see xiv. 5.
Vv. 3, 4 answer the question put in ver. 2, reinforming the readers: ‘‘ For I delivered to you amongst the first things, that which I also received”’.—Kat em- phasises the identity of the παραδοθὲν and παραλημφθέν, involved in the char- acter of a “‘ faithful steward”’ (iv. 1 f., cf. John xvii. 8, etc.). How these matters had been received—whether by direct revelation (Gal. i. 12) or through other contributory channels (cf. note on xi. 23 above)—is irrelevant.—év πρώτοις, in primis, in chief (cf. 1 Tim. i. 15 f.). The things thus delivered are ‘“‘that Christ
died for our sins according to the Scrip- tures, and that He was buried, and that He has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures”. Amongst the three πρῶτα, the first and third are πρώτιστα (cf. 2 Cor. v. 14 f., Rom. iv. 25, 1 Thess. iv. 14, etc.); the second is the link between them, signalising at once the completeness of the death and the reality of the resurrection (cf. Rom. vi. 4, x. 7): ὅτι ἐτάφη καὶ ὅτι ἐγήγερται is a more vivid and circumstantial expression for ὅτι, ἐγήγερται ἐκ νεκρῶν (12, etc.).—The two chiefest facts P. and the other Apostolic preachers (11) were accustomed to verify, both separately and jointly, from the Old Testament, κατὰ τὰς γραφάς (Acts xiii. 32 ff., xvii. 3, xxvi. 22 f., Rom. i. 2 Π.), after the manner of Jesus (Luke xxii. 37, xxiv. 25 ff., John iii. 14). But it was the facts that opened their eyes to the mean- ing of the Scriptures concerned (cf. John ii. 22, xx. 9). The death and burial are affirmed in the aor. as historical events; the resurrection is put with emphasis into the pf. tense, as an abiding power (cf. 14, 17, 20) = ἐγερθεὶς . . . οὐκέτι ἀπο- θνήσκει (Rom. vi. 9; cf. Heb. vii. 25).— ‘« For our sins,”’ see parls.—‘‘ pro peccatis nostris abolendis” (Bg.). “Ε. could not have said ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν jpov if Christ’s death were only an example of self-denial, not because ὑπὲρ must be rendered ‘instead of’ (in loco), but be- cause the ref. to sin involves with ὑπὲρ the notion of expiation” (Ed.); cf. the excellent note of Mr.; see the exposition of the relation of Christ’s death to man’s sin in 2 Cor. v. 18 ff., Rom. iii. 23 ff., v. 6- 11, Gal. iii. το ff., with notes in this Comm. ad locc. ; also ver. 56 below, and note. The definition on the third day indicates that ‘in His case restoration to life ensued, instead of the corruption of the corpse that sets in otherwise after this interval ”’ (Hf.). - Jesus appears to have seen a Scriptural necessity in the “third day” (Luke xxiv. 46).