ἂν
q See v. 10, 4) ον) ο , « , 2 cts ~ as}
Pan cat 49. * Emet "τί ᾿ ποιήσουσιν ot Barmlopuevn! ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν, 13; Mk. > sf t ‘ > t > / 1 = π η 4 / ς A ΜΑΝ. cba hegre οὐκ ᾿ἐγείρονται”; “Ti "καὶ βαπτίζονται ὑπὲρ xi. 47: ἵπ τῶ os 5 ος A cs a γ , wila πο 4 Lx, Jer. THY” VERPOV"; 30. “TL "καὶ ἡμεῖς κινδυνεύοµεν " wacav " ὥραν; iv. 30, ν. _ 3t; Hos. ix. 5. 5 See ν. 1. t See ver. 15. u Here and Rom. viii. 24 (?) only. v Acts xix, 27, 40; Lk, viii. 23 (abs. as here); Isa. xxviii. 13; Jonah i. 4; -vos, 2 Cor. xi. 26. wN.T. Εις
Ex. xviii. 22, 26; Lev. xvi.2. Cf. Rom. viii. 36.
| Lachm., Tisch., Al., W.H., El., Nestle, and others, place the interrog. sign after
νεκρων, attaching εν ολως κ.τ.λ. to the following sentence.
back as βαπτιζοµενοι. See note below. 2 aut@y, all uncec. but Τε],
on 6 vids ὑποταγήσεται (So most com- mentt.) or on τ. ὑποτάξαντι (so Hf., and some others). This solemn conclusion most fitly attaches to the princ. vb.; it expresses the loyal purpose of the Son in His self-subjection, whose submission exhibits the unity of the Godhead (ef. John x. 30-36, xvii. 23), and constitutes itself the focus and uniting bond of a universe in which God’s will is every- where regnant and His being everywhere
«immanent.—raowy neuter, like πάντα.
§ 53. ΤΗΕ ἘΕΕΕΟΤτ ΟΕ UNBELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION, xv. 20-34. To clinch the argument for the truth and the necessity of the Christian resurrection and to bring it home to the readers, the Ap. points out how futile Christian de- votion must be, such as is witnessed in “those baptised for the dead”’ and in his own daily hazards, if death ends all (29-31); present enjoyment would then appear the highest good (32). The effect of unbelief in the future life is already painfully apparent in the relaxed moral tone of a certain part of the Cor. Church
f.). og 29, 30. There are certain condi- tions of interpretation bearing on the sense of the much discussed expression οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν which bar out a large number of attempted explanations: (a) ot βαπτιζόμενοι, ον otherwise defined, can only mean {λε γε- cipients of Christian baptism, in its well- understood sense as the rite of initiation into the Christian state administered upon confession of faith (i. 13 ff., xii. 13, Rom. vi. 3 f., Gal. ili. 27, etc.). (0) ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν (not ὑπὲρ νεκρῶν, ‘on behalf of dead persons” as such: ¢f. 12, etc.) pyints to a specific class of ‘‘the dead”’ interested in the baptism of the living—presumably to ‘the (Christian) dead” of the last §, and probably to those amongst them who were connected with “the baptised’? in question. (ο) In fol- lowing up ver. 29 with the words of
Tr. puts it as far
ver 30 (τί καὶ ἡμεῖς κιγδυνεύοµεν ;) P. associates μι with the action of ‘those baptised for the dead,” indicating that they and he are engaged on the same behalf (for καὶ ἡμεῖς associating ‘‘we’’ with persons aforementioned, cf. 2 Cor. iv. 13, Gal. ii. 16, iv, 3, Eph. ii. 3, εἰς.). This last consideration excludes the interpretation, at present widely adopted (Ambrst., Anselm, Grot., Mr., Holsten, Al., Hn., Bt., El., Sm.), that P. alludes to a practice then (it is con- jectured) in vogue at Cor., which ex- isted much later amongst the heretical Cerinthians and Marcionites (see Cm. ad loc. in Cramer’s Catena; Tert., De Resurr. Carnis, 48, adv. Mare., ν., 10; Epiph., Her., xxviii., 6), viz., that of the vicarious baptism of living Christians as proxies for relatives or friends dying un- baptised. With such a proceeding P. could not have identified himself, even sup- posing that it existed at this time in the Church (of which there 15 no evidence), and that he had used it by way of argu- mentum ad hominem. An appeal to such a superstitious opus operatum would have laid the Ap. open to a damaging retort. Gd. justly asks, ‘ A quoi eit servi ce procédé de mauvaise logique et de bonne foi douteuse?”’ This objection tells less forcibly against the view, lately sug- gested, that P. alludes to some practice of substitutionary baptism observed in the Pagan mysteries, finding thus a witness to the Resurrection in the heathen con- science, καὶ ἡμεῖς adding thereto the Christian practical testimony; but con- dition (a) forbids this solution. As El. admits, condition (b) also bears strongly against the prevalent exposition. (0) moreover negatives the idea of Cm. and the Gr. Ff., maintained by Est. and Ev. (see the ingenious Addit. Note of the latter), that ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν means, as Thp. puts it, ὑπὲρ ἀναστάσεως, ἐπὶ προσδοκίᾳ ἀναστάσεως: if P. meant this, why did he not say it? The fol-