Ver. 13 opposes (δὲ) the thesis of the tives by a syllogism in the modus tollens —‘‘sublato genere, tollitur et species’ (Gr.): if bodily resurrection is per se im- possible, then there is no risen Christ (so Bg., Mr., Al., Bt., Ed., El., etc.); the abstract universal negative of the deniers ver. 16 will restate in the concrete. Hn. and Gd. (somewhat similarly Cm., Cv.) hold, on the other hand, that P. is mak- ing out the essential connexion between
Christ's rising and that of the Christian dead—in which case he should have written ἡ ἀνάστασις τῶν νεκρῶν; he speaks of ‘‘the dead im Christ” first in ver. 18 Hn. and Gd. justly observe that the τινὲς might have allowed Christ’s resurrection aS an exception; but the point of Paul’s argument is that this is logically impossible, that the absolute philosophical denial of bodily resurrec- tion precludes the raising up of Jesus Christ ; on the other hand, if He is risen, the axiom ᾿Ανάστασις οὐκ ἔστιν is dis- proved, the spell of death is broken, and Christ’s rising carries with it that of those who are ‘in Christ”’ (18, 20-23, 1 Thess. iv. 14; ¢f. John xi. 25, Heb. ii. 15).
Vv. 14, 15. The «amplicit affirmative conclusion just intimated P. will develop afterwards. He has first to push the opposing axiom to further consequences. (1) if the fact is untrue, the testimony is untrue— But if Christ is not raised, vain therefore is our proclamation, vain also your faith ’’.—Kevds (see note on οὐ κενή, 10; and cf. κενόω, i. 17, etc.) signifies void, unsubstantial (inanis, Vg.)—a hol- low witness, a hollow belief, while µᾳ- ταιος (17; see paris.) is ‘‘vain” as ineffectual, frustrate. For κήρνγµα, see note on i. 21; on its distinction from λόγος (2), see ii. 4: ἡμῶν includes P. and his colleagues (11). For ᾶρα, see v. 10.— If ‘the message is empty,” declaring a thing that is not, “the faith is also
924
e See iii. 2c. f Jo. viii. 21, 24, ix. 34. ται" g See vii.39. hx Th. iv. τς. 6). 1.1.
ἐστὲ {
1ειπερ.. .
ει...
2 Ins. εστιν (2): BD*. view of νετ. 14.
3 και ετι: ΜΑ, 31, sah. basm. syréch. ; τι ετι, de (quid adhuc).
cmpty,” building on the thing that is not; preaching and faith have no genuine content; the Gospel is evacuated of all reality.—For the character of P. and his fellow-witnesses this conclusion has a serious aspect: ‘‘We are found more- over (to be) false witnesses of God”— men who have given lying testimony, and that about God, ‘‘the worst sort of impostors ” (Gd.)! τοῦ Θεοῦ is objective gen., as the next clause shows; it is always ‘*God” to whom P. imputes the raising of Christ, who by this act gave His verdict concerning Jesus (Rom. 1. 4, Gal. i. 1, Eph. i. 20; Acts il. 36, xiii. 30-39, xvii. 31).—82 καὶ calls emphatic attention to another and contrasted side of the matter in Ἠαπά.-- εὑρισκόμεθα ap- proaches the sense of ἐλεγχόμεθα or ἁλισκόμεθα (see parls.)—‘‘ discovered” in a false and guilty position.—Nothing can be stronger evidence than this pas- sage to the objective reality, in Paul’s experience, of the risen form of Jesus. The suspicion of hallucination, on his own part or that of the other witnesses, was foreign to his mind; the matter stood on the plain footing of testimony, given by a large number of intelligent, sober, and responsible witnesses to a sensible, concrete, circumstantial fact: ‘‘Rither He rose from the grave, or we lied in affirming it” —the dilemma admits of no escape.—Ort ἐμαρτυρήσαμεν κ.τ.λ. : ‘‘in that we testified against God that He raised up the Christ—whom He did not raise, if indeed then (as ‘some’ affirm) dead (men) are not raised up”. κατὰ τ. Θεοῦ. adversus Deum (Vg., Est., Mr., Hn., Gd., Ed., Sm.), as always in such connexion in N.T. (see iv. 6 and parls.), not de Deo (Er., Bz., Al., ΕΙ., A.V.); the falsehood (e# Ayp.) would have wronged God, as, ¢.g., the ascription of miracles to God traduces Him in the eyes of Deists.—ayepe τὸν Χριστόν, ‘the Messiah,” whom ‘according to the Scriptures”’ (3 f.; cf. Luke xxiv. 46, Acts xvii. 3, xxvi. 22 f., etc.) God was