[1] Some recent titles: Blank, J., ‘Erwägungen zum Schriftverständnis des PaulusM’, in Friedrich, J., Pöhlmann, W., Stuhlmacher, P. (eds.), Rechtfertigung. Fs. E. Käsemann (Tübingen–Göttingen, 1976), pp. 37–56Google Scholar; Braun, H., ‘Das Alte Testament im Neuen Testament’, in ZTK 59 (1962), 16–32Google Scholar; also in , Braun, Oikodome. Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament. Band 2 (ed. Klein, G.; Theol. Büch., 65) (München, 1979), pp. 196–228Google Scholar; Cranfield, C. E. B., The Epistle to the Romans (ICC), Vol. 2 (Edinburgh, 1979), pp. 863–70: Use of the O.T. (with select bibliography on p. 863, n. 1)Google Scholar; Dietzfelbinger, C., Paulus und das Alte Testament. Die Hermeneutik des Paulus, untersucht an seiner Bedeutung der Gestalt Abrahams (Theol. Ex. Heute, 95) (München, 1961)Google Scholar; Dugandžić, I., Das ‘Ja’ Gottes in Christus. Eine Studie zur Bedeutung des Alten Testaments für das Christusverständnis des Paulus (Forsch. zur Bib., 26) (Würzburg, 1977) (a good survey of recent research on pp. 5–17)Google Scholar; Ellis, E., Paul's Use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh, 1957)Google Scholar; Hanson, A. T., Studies in Paul's Technique and Theology (London, 1974)Google Scholar; Hooker, M. D., ‘Beyond the Things That are Written? St Paul's Use of Scripture’, in NTS 27 (1980–1981), 295–309 (with special attention to 2 Cor. 3–4)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Michel, O., ‘Zum Thema Paulus und seine Bibel’, in Feld, H., Nolte, J. (eds.), Wort Gottes in der Zeit. Fs. K. H. Schelkle (Düsseldorf, 1973), pp. 114–26Google Scholar (Michel is the author of Paulus und seine Bibel [Beitr. Förd. Christl. Theol., II, 18] (Gütersloh, 1929)); Schmid, J., ‘Die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Paulus und die Theoria vom sensus plenior’, in BZ 3 (1959), 161–73Google Scholar; Vielhauer, P., ‘Paulus und das Alte Testament’, in Abramowski, L., Goeters, J. F. G. (eds.), Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie der Reformation. Fs. E. Bizer (Neukirchen, 1969), pp. 33–62Google Scholar. In his article ‘L'utilisation des citations de l'Ancien Testament dans la premiére épître de Pierre’, in RTL 12 (1981), 64–77Google Scholar, T. P. Osborne justly observes that in the study of the Old Testament in the New more is needed than ‘une simple étude descriptive de l'état du texte tel qu'il fut employé par l' auteur, mais d' un travail qui révèle quelque chose de sa pensée et de sa personnalité’ (p. 64).

[2] The τω⋯ς in 1 Cor. 15. 12 who claim that ‘there is no resurrection of the dead’ may probably be related to the τω⋯ς in 15. 34 who have ‘no knowledge of God’. Accordingly, it can be said that the one who denies the resurrection of the dead thereby shows that he has still not understood who God is and how God acts. As a few others do, J. D. McCaughey, ‘The Death of Death (I Cor. 15:26)’, in Banks, R. (ed.) Reconciliation and Hope. New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology. Fs. L. L. Morris (Grand Rapids, 1974), pp. 246–61, p. 249, links vv. 20–22 to vv. 12–19 and takes vv. 12–22 as a unit.Google Scholar

[3] In vv. 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 20 the perfect tense passive έγ⋯γρται is used, but never else-where in Paul. One can assume that in this use Paul was influenced by the traditional formula in which the form occurs in v. 4b. Should the verb be translated as a real passive: Christ has been raised (by God)? In Balz, H., Schneider, G. (eds.), Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, Vol. 1 (Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln-Mainz, 1979), cls. 899–910, J. Kremer pleads with good arguments for the active meaning: Christ is risen.Google Scholar

[4] For this ‘Aussagenlogik’ (‘megarisch-stoisch’, to be distinguished from the Aristotelian syllogistic ‘Prädikatenlogik’), see the two articles of Bucher, T. G., ‘Die logische Argumentation in 1. Korinther 15, 12–20’, in Bib 55 (1974), 465–86Google Scholar; ‘Auferstehung Christi und Auferstehung der Toten’, in Münch. Theol. Zeitschr. 27 (1976), 1–32Google Scholar, and his vigorous reply ‘Nochmals zur Beweisführung in 1. Korinther 15, 12–20’, in Theol. Zeitschr. 36 (1980), 129–52Google Scholar, to Sandelin, K.-G., Die Auseinandersetzung mit der Weisheit in 1. Korinther 15 (Meddelanden från Stiftelsens för Åbo Akademi Forskningsinstitut, 12) (Åbo, 1976), pp. 14–19Google Scholar, and Bachmann, M., ‘Zur Gedankenführung in 1. Kor. 15, 12ff.’, in Theol. Zeitschr. 34 (1978), 265–76.Google Scholar In a careful analysis of Paul's logic, esp. in vv. 13, 16 and 20, Bucher shows that, according to Paul, Christ's resurrection implies (‘begründet’) the resurrection of the dead and not vice versa. From vv. 20–22 and 44b–49 it is evident how Paul understands the representative status of Jesus Christ. Christ's new life influences the fate of all who are joined with him! One has to bear in mind this Pauline conviction in order to grasp the hidden causal nature of the basic implication within vv. 12–19: ‘If Christ is risen, Christians will rise’. However, it would seem to us that Bucher himself wrongly considers v. 20 as belonging to vv. 12–19. In his opinion v. 20 contains the ‘minor’ for v. 13 and v. 16. But this ‘minor’ is already present in vv. 1–11. As a matter of fact v. 20 restates by way of conclusion and new start the content of v. 12. As such it contains not only the ‘minor’ but also the conclusion since the expression ‘the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep’ sees Jesus' resurrection both as the temporally first and as carrying with it the resurrection of the Christians: But in fact Christ is risen (minor), thus there will be a resurrection of Christians (conclusion). Cf. Wilcke, H.-A., Das Problem eines messianischen Zwischenreichs bei Paulus (ATANT, 51) (Zürich-Stuttgart, 1967), p. 64Google Scholar, n. 241: ‘Als Schlusssatz zu νυν⋯ δ⋯ Χριστòς ⋯γίγερται ⋯κρωτν würde man eigentlich auch erwarten: folglich wird es auch für uns eine Auferstehung geben. ‘Aπαρχ⋯ τωτν κεκoΨημ⋯νων besagt aber dasselbe’. Further, Bucher should not have disregarded v. 12 (cf. ‘Die logische Argumentation’, pp. 465–6: ‘Diese Frage [= v. 12b] hat psychologisch-rhetorische Bedeutung. Für eine strenge Folgerung mag sich nichts beizutragen. Folglich werde ich mich für die Argumentation nicht auf diesen Vers berufen’, p. 465). Vv. 13 and 16 are rather the exact ‘Kontraposition’ and equivalent of the first and fundamental implication present in v. 12. All attention (see vv. 12, 14–15, 17–18, 19) is given to Christ's resurrection and the implications of its denial. Recently, Murphy, D. J., The Dead in Christ: Paul's Understanding of God's Fidelity. A Study of 1 Corinthians 15 (Ann Arbor, 1979) (microfilm of Ph.D. dissertation Union Theological Seminary, New York, 1977), pp. 165–76Google Scholar, without knowledge of Bucher and using the ‘Prädikatenlogik’, has again discussed the so–called apparent anomaly between v. 12 and v. 13, and Paul's use in v. 13 and v. 16 of the rule of logic that no universally negative statement can stand in the presence of even one positive exception (cf. Weiss, J., Der erste Korintherbrief, Meyer, 9th ed. [Göttingen, 1910], p. 353).Google Scholar But, if Bucher is right, there is no anomaly.

[5] The motivating ŏτι-clause of v. 15 explains their being false witnesses and by its length signifies, as it were, the end of the first step.

[6] Although v. 18 is grammatically speaking not an apodosis but an independent statement, as far as its content is concerned it clearly contains another implication.

[7] So the translation of Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Black) (London, 1968), p. 346Google Scholar; see also his comment on pp. 349–50. The term μóνoν applies to the whole clause and esp. to ‘in this life’ (and not to ‘have hoped’, as if ‘to hope’ were negatively meant – that is, only hope, but with no ‘reality’ to support it). Otherwise, e.g. Wilcke, Problem (see n. 4), pp. 57–8; Weiss, 1. Kor (see n. 4), p. 355: ‘“nur hoffen”, d.h. ohne Erfüllung hoffen, genarrt hoffende’. But if the word order is to be given exclusive credit and ‘only hope’ accepted, one asks what then the function and meaning of the expression ‘in this life’ still can be.

[8] However, questions (in vv. 29, 30–2), statement (v. 31) and exhortation (v. 32) can easily be transformed into apodosis-clauses. Like those in vv. 12–19, they constitute negative consequences.

[9] The implications of v. 19 (‘… we are of all men most to be pitied’) and vv. 30–32 a (‘Why am I in peril every hour? … What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus?’) seem to be related to each other, even if the ‘we’ of v. 19 points to all Christians and not solely to Paul (and his co-workers).

[10] Cf. Morissette, R., ‘La citation du Psaume VIII, 7b dans I Corinthiens XV, 27a’, in Science et Esprit 24 (1972), 313–42Google Scholar (esp. pp. 315–24). On p. 315 Morissette elaborates the following structure: I. Vv. 20–23: A Enoncé de la thèse (v. 20) B Développement ‘scripturaire’ (vv. 21–22) A' Reprise descriptive de la thèse (v. 23) II. Vv. 24–28: A Enoncé de la thése (v. 24) B Développement ‘scripturaire’ (vv. 25–27) A′ Reprise la thèse (v. 28). It would seem, however, that these ABA′ patterns are hardly intended by Paul. V. 23 marks a new start and, with ⋯παρΧ⋯ and ἔπειτα, it cannot be separated from v. 24 with εἶτα. Cf. e.g. N²⁶ which by the space given between v. 22 and v. 23 supports this division.

[11] Wilcke, Problem (see n. 4), pp. 83–5, defends the ‘Uminterpunktion’ already proposed by B. Weiss, according to which Ĕκαστoς ⋯ν τῷ λδ⋯ῳ τ⋯γματι still belongs to v. 22; with ⋯παρχ⋯, then, a new sentence begins. His explanation of τ⋯γμα as referring to both π⋯ντες of v. 22 and distinguishing thus between the larger Adam group and the smaller Christ group does not carry conviction. We may refer to 1 Cor. 7. 7 where the same words Ěκαστoς and ἴδιoς refer to only one π⋯ντες and are then further explained, just as in 1 Cor. 15. 22b-23. It would also seem, against Wilcke, pp. 76–83, that Christ forms the first τ⋯γμα. Wilcke's position is taken over by Schendel, E., Herrschaft und Unterwerfung Christi: 1. Korinther 15, 24–28 in Exegese und Theologie der Väter bis zum Ausgang des 4. Jahrhunderts (Beitr. Gesch. Bibl. Exeg., 12) (Tübingen, 1971), pp. 10–12.Google Scholar

[12] For the text critical choice in v. 24b of παραδιδῳ (present subjunctive), cf. e.g. Wilcke, Problem (see n. 4), pp. 96–7. The variant reading παραδῷ ‘kann wegen der schwachen Bezeugung und des Verdachts der Konflation nach καταργ⋯ση nicht in Betracht kommen’ (Weiss, 1 Kor. [see n. 4], p. 359, n. 1).

[13] Cf. Luz, U., Das Geschichtsverständnis des Paulus (Beitr. Evang. Theol., 49) (München, 1968), p. 341Google Scholar: ‘Die beiden ŏταν-Sätze in V. 24 scheinen in V. 25–27a und 27b–28 in umgekehrter Reihenfolge expliziert zu sein.’ The action mentioned in the second ŏταν-clause (aorist, see n. 12) precedes that of the first and refers to phase 2.

[14] The expression νυν⋯ δ⋯ hardly contains, besides its adversative and logical force, a temporal nuance. Otherwise e.g. Schendel, Herrschaft (see n. 11), p. 6 (‘jetzt aber’).

[15] In v. 21 the γ⋯ρ (‘à portée différée’) only bears on the second clause; v. 21b explains the end of v. 20. In v. 21 as well as in v. 22 the γ⋯ρ is not strictly motivating but explicative. As for ⋯πε⋯δη in v. 21, which bears on the whole verse, its causal sense should not be forced. For another and similar ⋯πε⋯δη γ⋯ρ, see 1 Cor. 1. 21, although here ⋯πε⋯δη is fully causal.

[16] ‘Then comes the end.’ τ⋯λoς does not point to a third class of persons (e.g. the non-Christians). This would suppose a translation of τ⋯λoς by ‘rest’ which cannot be accepted here. ‘End’ is clearly a temporal word, further determined by the double ŏταν in v. 24b and c. Note the tenses and hence the time difference: ‘When he will hand over … after he has destroyed.’ For τ⋯λoς, cf. e.g. Héring, J., ‘Saint-Paul a-t-il enseigné deux résurrections?’ in Rev. Hist. Phil. Rel. 12 (1931), 300–20Google Scholar, and his commentary La première épître de saint Paul aux Corinthiens (Comm. N.T.) (Neuchâtel-Paris, 1949), where on pp. 139–40Google Scholar he succinctly discusses the three defended renderings (‘la fin, le reste, finalement’); Senft, C., La première épître de saint Paul aux Corinthiens (Comm. N.T.) (Neuchâtel-Paris, 1979), pp. 198–9 (same three renderings)Google Scholar; Wilcke, , Problem (see n. 4), pp. 85–92 (a good survey).Google Scholar

[17] Cf. Dupont, J., ‘“Assis à la droite de Dieu”. L'interprétation du Ps 110, 1 dans le Nouveau Testament’, in Dhanis, E. (ed.), Resurrexit. Actes du symposium international sur la résurrection de Jésus (Rome 1970) (Rome, 1974), pp. 340–422Google Scholar, p. 387: ‘Si l'on tient compte du contexte, centré sur la résurrection de Jésus, c'est dans cet événement qu'il faut naturellement chercher le point de départ du règne du Christ.’

[18] Cf. Hahn, F., Christologische Hoheitstitel. Ihre Geschichte im frühen Christentum (FRLANT, 83) (Göttingen, 1963), pp. 112–32.Google Scholar For a treatment of Hahn's position, see e.g. the article of Dupont, ‘“Assis”’ (see n. 17) and Lambrecht, J., ‘De oudste christologie: verrijzenis of verhoging?’, in Bijdragen 36 (1975), 118–44 (bibliography on pp. 143–4)Google Scholar, now also in Lambrecht, , Daar komt toch eens … Opstellen over verrijzenis en eeuwig leven (Nikè-reeks, 2) (Leuven, 1981), pp. 151–94 (bibliography on pp. 190–4).Google Scholar

[19] So according to many authors. We may quote Hay, D. M., Glory at the Right Hand. Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (Soc. Bibl. Lit. Mon. Ser., 18) (Nashville-New York, 1973), p. 36Google Scholar, n. 6: ‘Rather than simply being an “introduction” to the allusion to vs 1c, this clause may be an allusion to, or paraphrase of, vs 1b of the psalm …’ It is also worth noting that in Jewish use of Ps. 110 the ‘session’ is rather seen as a symbol of passivity and inactivity (cf. ibid., e.g. pp. 30–1).

[20] ‘All’ is important in Paul's reasoning; it occurs no fewer than eleven times in 15. 20–28! See Hay, Glory (see n. 19), p. 37: ‘The apostle's interpolation of it (from Ps 8) into his allusion to Ps 110:1 in 15.25 seems grounded on the supposition that the two psalm texts interpret one another.’ Also in Rom. 10. 11 (= Is. 28. 16) Paul adds a πã which is present in Joel 3. 5 (= Rom. 10. 13).

[21] In the Psalm ἓως ἄν points to the ‘Endzustand des Sieges. Paulus macht daraus eine zeitliche Grenze’. So Conzelmann, H., Der erste Brief an die Korinther (Meyer), 11th ed. (Göttingen, 1969), p. 323, n. 92.Google Scholar

[22] Cf. Dupont, ‘“Assis”’ (see n. 17), p. 389: ‘Nous assistons donc à une transposition, qui n'est pas sans importance au point de vue christologique: la soumission des ennemis, dont les psaumes faisaient l'oeuvre de Dieu, est présentée ici comme l'oeuvre du Christ, définissant la finalité de son règne.’

[23] Cf. Ambrosiaster (PL 17, 275): ‘Destructio mortis, resurrectio mortuorum.’

[24] The verb καταργ⋯ω, here in vv. 26 and 24 with the meaning ‘to destroy’, would seem to be the typically Pauline word. The two other verbs ‘to put (under his feet)’ (v. 25) and ‘to subject’ (vv. 27–28) are given by the psalms, and by themselves they do not point to destruction. It should also be noted that in v. 28 with regard to the ‘subordination’ of Christ, Paul must adapt the rather negative meaning of πoτ⋯σσω of v. 27 to a more positive nuance. Cf. Thüsing, W., Per Christum in Deum. Studien zum Verhältnis von Christozentrik und Theozentrik in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen (NTA, 1) (Münster, 1965), pp. 241–3.Google Scholar

[25] Conzelmann, 1. Kor (see n. 21), p. 326, n. 110. Cf. Weiss, 1. Kor (see n. 4), p. 360: ‘ŏταν δ⋯εἲπη fasse ich … als exegetische Bemerkung des Paulus “wenn er aber sagt”…’, and note 3 on the same page: ‘eine laxe Wendung’. Lietzmann, H., An die Korinther I/II (Handb., H. T.), 4th ed. (Kümmel, W. G.) (Tübingen, 1949), p. 81, calls v. 27b a ‘Korrektur’.Google Scholar

[26] The same applies to ύπoτ⋯ξαντι in v. 28b. The agent of the passives ύπoτ⋯τακται (v. 27b), ύπoταγῇ - ύπoταγ⋯σετται (v. 28ab) is, as in 1 Pet. 3. 22, also God (but see n. 27). We may compare this change from active to passive with Hebr. 1. 13 (σώ) and 10. 13 (τεσώσω), where both passages quote Ps. 110. 1 (God subject and agent!).

[27] Cf. Morissette, ‘Citation’ (see n. 10), p. 328 and esp. the long note 26. Many exegetes, however, take ύπoταγῇ and ὑπoταγ⋯σεται as deponent and thus with an active meaning.

[28] 1 Cor (see n. 7), p. 361. On the ἳνα in v. 28, see Stauffer, E., ‘ἳνα und das Problem des teleologischen Denkens bei Paulus’, in Theol. Stud. u. Kritiken 102 (1930), 232–57Google Scholar: ‘Der Apostel liebt es, grosse und wichtige Gedankenreihen in einem ἵνα-Satz gipfeln zu lassen’ (p. 240); ‘das ἳνα dient zur Kennzeichnung der Absichten, der Wege und Ziele des Gottes, der über aller Welt, der hinter aller Geschichte und am Ende aller Eschatologie steht’ (p. 250).

[29] Cf. e.g. Schweizer, E., ‘1. Korinther 15, 20–28 als Zeugnis paulinischer Eschatologie und ihrer Verwandtschaft mit der Verkündigung Jesu’, in: Ellis, E. E., Grässer, E. (eds.), Jesus und Paulus. Fs. W. G. Kümmel (Göttingen, 1975), pp. 301–14.Google Scholar This article has been translated and slightly expanded: ‘“Pour que Dieu soit tout en tous” (1 Cor., XV. 28). Contribution à la notion de l'image de Dieu dans les perspectives eschatologiques de Jésus et de Paul’, in Coppens, J. (ed.), La notion biblique de Dieu. Le Dieu de la Bible et le Dieu des philosophes (BETL, 41) (Gembloux-Leuven, 1976), pp. 275–91.Google Scholar

[30] Maier, F. W., ‘Ps 110, 1 (LXX 109, 1) im Zusammenhang von 1 Kor 15, 24–26’, in BZ 20 (1932), 139–56.Google Scholar

[31] Aono, T., Die Entwicklung des paulinischen Gerichtsgedankens bei den Apostolischen Vätern (Europäische Hochschulschriften, XXIII, 137) (Bern-Frankfurt-Las Vegas, 1979), pp. 26–8Google Scholar (Exkurs: ‘Theozentrik in 1 Kor 15, 24–28’). One is here reminded of Marcion who, according to Esnik, states that the Lord of the world, the inferior creator-God, will destroy himself and his world. von Harnack, A., Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott (Texte u. Unters., 45), 2nd ed., 1924, p. 378Google Scholar, notes: ‘… nach Marcion wechselt also in diesen Versen das Subjekt; in v. 24 ist es der Weltschöpfer, in v. 25 Jesus’. Cf. also pp. 140–1 and n. 2 on p. 140.

[32] Cf. Luz, , Geschichtsverständnis (see n. 13), pp. 343–5.Google Scholar Also in Polycarp, Phil. 2. 1 (‘vermutlich ohne direkte Abhängigkeit vom ersten Korintherbrief’, p. 344). Luz also refers to Mk. 12. 36 (= Ps. 110. 1; ύπo⋯τω may be borrowed from Ps. 8. 7). See also Sandelin, Auseinandersetzung (see n. 4), pp. 72–80 (a thorough discussion of this tradition and a plea for its origin in the Sophia-Christology), and Hay, Glory (see n. 19), pp. 128–9. Hay notes on pp. 44–5: ‘The passage most often linked with it [Ps. 110. 1], Ps. 8. 7, might have been connected with it independently by various Christians because of the similarity of the two psalm texts.’ Cf. Dunn, J. D. G., Christology in the Making. A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (London, 1980)Google Scholar: ‘So what we have in Ps. 8. 6 [= v. 7] is a text which was adopted by earliest Christian apologetic to fill out Ps. 110. 1's description of Christ's exalted authority as Lord’ (pp. 108–9).

[33] Not only the other Pauline influences on Ephesians, but the combination itself and the way Ps. 8. 7 is edited in Eph. 1. 22 (third person, ύπ⋯ + acc.) make one suspicious. Compare also the same order of ⋯ρχ⋯, ⋯ξoυ⋯α and δ⋯ναμις in Eph. 1. 21 and 1 Cor. 15. 24 (together with the presence in both passages of the emphatic πᾱσα) and τ⋯π⋯ντα ⋯ν πᾱσω in Eph. 1. 23 (with regard to Christ) and 1 Cor. 15. 28 (with regard to God). Otherwise Luz, Geschichtsverständnis (see n. 13), p. 344, who considers the two identical changes in 1 Cor. 15. 27 and Eph. 1. 22 over against Ps. 8. 7 (LXX) as confirmation of a pre-Pauline liturgical origin. But do Eph. 1. 20–23 contain ‘alte, liturgische Tradition’? For Pauline influence on Ephesians, see Mitton, C. L., The Epistle to the Ephesians. Its Authorship, Origin and Purpose (Oxford, 1951), pp. 138–58Google Scholar: ‘Conflations in Ephesians of Passages from the Pauline Epistles’, and pp. 333–8. According to Mitton, pp. 246–7, 1 Cor. 15. 24–28 is one of the five Pauline passages which ‘have exercised a sustained influence on Ephesians’. It is also worth noting that the three spirit-powers of 1 Pet. 3. 22 (ύπoταγ⋯ντων αὐττ) ⋯γγ⋯ων κα⋯ ⋯oυ can be compared with Paul's series ⋯ρχ⋯, ⋯ξoυσ⋯α, δὐναμις through Rom. 8. 38 where he writes ἂγγελoι, ⋯ρΧα⋯ …, δυν⋯μεις. Cf. Sandelin, , Auseinandersetzung (see n. 4), pp. 73–4Google Scholar; Selwyn, E. G., The First Epistle of St. Peter (London, 1947), pp. 207–8.Google Scholar

[34] Entwicklung (see n. 31), pp. 26–8. According to de, W. Boor, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (Wuppertaler Studienbibel) (4th ed., Wuppertal, 1977), pp. 268–9Google Scholar, it remains uncertain whether Christ or God is the subject of θῇ in v. 25. One would in view of v. 24 opt for Christ, he says, ‘Aber es könnte auch schon in V. 24 ein Wechsel des Subjektes stillschweigend mitgedacht sein’ (p. 269).

[35] Cf. Aono, , Entwicklung (see n. 31), p. 26Google Scholar: ‘ … denn das Objekt von the und katargese ist dasselbe’.

[36] Cf. Luz, Geschichtsverständnis (see n. 13), p. 343: ‘Das Nebeneinander der beiden Temporalsätze könnte man so erklären, dass Paulus eine ihm nicht geläufige traditionelle Aussage in einem zweiten Nebensatz in seinem Sinn präzisiert.’ However, is it possible to prove the strictly un-Pauline vocabulary and concepts of v. 24b (cf. Luz's note 96 on p. 343: παραδ⋯δωμι active, with Christ as subject; ‘delivering’ to God; ‘kingdom’ of Christ; ‘God and Father’ without further qualification)? With regard to 1 Cor. 15. 23–28 Luz, pp. 343–52, is of the opinion that Paul combines two pre-Pauline Christian traditions: (1) The subjection of all inimical powers by the exalted Christ (at the resurrection - but no explicit reflection on the time); in Christian communities this was expressed by means of Ps. 110. 1, which psalm in the old liturgical traditions of Eph. 1. 20–23 and 1 Pet. 3. 22 was linked with Ps. 8. 7, and (2) the future delivering of the kingdom to God. In view of the actual presence of the enemy Death - people still die! - and the seeming unbelief and resignation of the Corinthians, by this combination (= an ‘Uminterpretation traditionellen Materials’, p. 352) Paul (a ‘schöpferischer Apokalyptiker’, p. 358) stresses that the final subjection lies still in the future. Becker, J., Auferstehung der Toten im Urchristentum (SBS, 82) (Stuttgart, 1976), pp. 82–6, holds that these two traditions were already combined before Paul.Google Scholar One asks himself whether both these authors do not reckon here too much with fixed, and in the Pauline text, still neatly separable traditions and whether they do not highly underestimate Paul's redactional activity. Cf. also Schendel, Herrschaft (see n. 11), p. 21, n. 81, who discusses the so-called pre-Pauline character of the ‘delivering of the kingdom’: ‘… Paulus [muss] nicht unbedingt die Originalität dieses Gedankens abgesprochen werden’.

[37] One is here reminded of the famous crux in Act. 20. 28: ‘… to feed the Church of God, which he obtained with his own blood’. Who is the subject of ‘obtained’? Cf. Lambrecht, J., ‘Paul's Farewell-Address at Miletus (Acts 20, 17–38)’, in Kremer, J. (ed.), Les Actes des Apo˚tres. Traditions, rédaction, théologie (BETL, 48) (Gembloux-Leuven, 1979), pp. 307–37, esp. pp. 321–2.Google Scholar

[38] See 1 Cor. 4. 20; 6. 9–10; 15. 50; 1 Thess. 2. 12; (2 Thess. 1. 5); Gal. 5. 21; Rom. 14. 17; (Col. 4. 13; but 1. 13: ‘of the Son’).

[39] ‘Ps 110, 1’ (see n. 30), pp. 155–6. Other authors: For Aono and De Boor, see references in n. 34; Grosheide, F. W., De eerste brief aan de kerk te Korinthe (Comm. N.T.) (Kampen, 1957), p. 404Google Scholar; Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New Intern. Comm. N.T.) (Grand Rapids, 1953), p. 367Google Scholar; Pop, F. J., De eerste brief van Paulus aan de Corinthiërs (Prediking N.T.), (2nd ed., Nijkerk, 1971), p. 374 (presumably)Google Scholar; Thüsing, , Per Christum (see n. 24), p. 240, n. 3Google Scholar; Van den Berghe, P., ‘De opstanding van de doden. Een lezing van 1 Kor. 15’, in Coll. Brug. Gand. 11 (1965), 173–218, p. 204 (in his translation).Google Scholar

[40] Cf. e.g. Grosheide and Pop in previous note.

[41] Cf. Maier, ‘Ps 110, 1’ (see n. 30), p. 139: ‘Beidemal will der Apostel nicht eigene Gedanken ins ehrwürdige Sprachgewand des hl. Gotteswortes kleiden oder Selbstgedachtes oder -gesagtes bloss biblisch erläutern oder veranschaulichen. Die Schriftworte sind vielmehr bewusst in den Rahmen eines Schriftbeweises gespannt, die Verse 25 und 27 wollen als regelrechte Schriftbeweise gewertet werden.’

[42] Cf. ibid., pp. 139–41.

[43] Cf. Grosheide, 1 Kor (see n. 39), p. 440, n. 77 (a note which is omitted in his English commentary).

[44] Commentators who consider Christ as subject of θῇ: Allo, E.-B., Première épître aux Corinthiens (EB) (2nd ed., Paris, 1956), p. 408Google Scholar; Becker, Auferstehung (see n. 36), p. 86, n. 33; Conzelmann, 1. Kor (see n. 21), p. 323; Dupont, ‘“Assis”’ (see n. 17), pp. 389–90; Héring, 1 Cor (see n. 16), p. 141 (‘peut-être’); Huby, J., Première épître aux Corinthiens (Verbum salutis) (Paris, 1946), p. 375, n. 1Google Scholar; Lietzmann, 1. Kor (see n. 25), p. 25; Luz, Geschichtsverständnis (see n. 13), p. 340 and n. 86; Moffatt, J., The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Moffatt N.T. Comm.) (London, 1938), p. 249Google Scholar; Robertson, A., Plummer, A., First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthiens (ICC) (2nd ed., Edinburgh, 1914), p. 356Google Scholar; Schendel, Herrschaft (see n. 11), pp. 16–17; Schmid, ‘Zitate’ (see n. 1), p. 171; Senft, 1 Cor (see n. 16), p. 199; Weiss, 1. Kor (see n. 4), p. 359 (‘kein Zweifel’); Wendland, H.-D., Die Briefe an die Korinther (Das Neue Testament Deutsch) (8th ed., Göttingen, 1962), pp. 127–8 (αὐτῷ = God); Wilcke, Problem (see n. 4), p. 101.Google Scholar

[45] Cf. the appropriate remark of Maier, ‘Ps 110, 1’ (see n. 30), p. 144, that ‘Ps 110, 1 dem A postel nicht erst hinterher in die Feder fliesst, sondern schon bei der Formung des V. 24 selbst vor der Seele steht’.

[46] It is true, γάρ, like ὅτι, δὡτι, ⋯λ⋯ and καθώς can be used as an ‘elliptische Zitationsformel’. Cf. Maier, ‘Ps 110, 1’ (see n. 30), p. 139, n. 3. Rom. 10. 13 (Prov. 3. 5, LXX), Rom. 11. 34 (Is. 40. 13), l Cor. 2. 16 (Is. 40. 13), and l Cor. 10. 26 (Ps. 24. 1) are clear examples. In l Cor. 10. 5 (Num. 14. 16) and 2 Cor. 2. 9 (Prov. 22. 8a, LXX) there is a great deal of Pauline rewriting.

[47] On the hellenistic neglect of the reflexive pronoun, especially in the possessive genitive, see Zerwick, M., Biblical Greek (Rome, 1963), nrs. 208–210Google Scholar. In view of vv. 27c-28, it is very unlikely that αὐτo⋯ in v. 25b (and v. 27a) refers to God, as Schmid, ‘Zitate’ (see n. 1), p. 171, defends: ‘Das Psalmwort erhält demgemäss bei ihm den Sinn, dass Christus herrschen wird, bis er alle von ihm überwundenen Feinde dem Vater zu Füssen legen wird.’

[48] Allo, l Cor (see n. 44), p. 408 (‘probablement’); Barrett, l Cor (see n. 7), p. 358 (with some hesitation); De Boor, l.Kor (see n. 34), p. 270; Godet, F., La première épître aux Corinthiens, Vol. II (Neuchâtel, 1887), p. 363Google Scholar; Grimm, W., ‘Über die Stelle l Kor. 15, 20–28’, in Zeitschr. Wiss. Theol, 16 (1873), 380–411, p. 393Google Scholar; Héring, l Cor (see n. 16), p. 141; Lenski, R. C. H., The Interpretation of St. Paul's First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians (Minneapolis, 2nd ed., 1963), pp. 680–3Google Scholar; Luz, , Geschichtsverständnis (see n. 13), p. 340 and n. 86Google Scholar; Maier, ‘Ps 110, 1’ (see n. 30), p. 156; Moffatt, l Cor (see n. 44), p. 248; Morissette, ‘Citation’ (see n. 10), p. 326 and n. 14; Pop, l Cor (see n. 39), p. 374; Robertson-Plummer, l Cor (see n. 44), p. 356; Schnackenburg, R., Gottes Herrschaft und Reich. Eine biblisch-theologische Studie (Freiburg, 1959), p. 207Google Scholar; Schendel, Herrschaft (see n. 11), p. 18; Senft, l Cor (see n. 16), p. 200; Thüsing, Per Christum (see n. 24), p. 240, n. 3; Van den Berghe, ‘Opstanding’ (see n. 39), p. 204 (in his translation); Weiss, l. Kor (see n. 4), p. 360 (‘natürlich’); Wendland, l. Kor (see n. 44), p. 127 (in his translation); Zerwick, Biblical Greek (see n. 47), nr. 210.

[49] Among those who, although not necessarily for all of our reasons, consider Christ as the subject in v. 27a we may reckon Becker, Auferstehung (see n. 36), p. 86, n. 33; Conzelmann, l. Kor (see n. 21), p. 326; Dupont, ‘“Assis”’ (see n. 17), pp. 390–1; Huby, l Cor (see n. 44), p. 375, n. 1; Lietzmann, l. Kor (see n. 25), p. 25; Sandelin, Auseinandersetzung (see n. 4), p. 68; Wilcke, Problem (see n. 4), pp. 104–5.

[50] Elsewhere Paul uses ὑπoτασσω always with a dative (see vv. 27c and 28bc, and Rom. 8. 7, 20; 10. 3; 13. 1; 1 Cor. 14. 32, 34; 16. 16; Phil. 3. 21. Only in v. 27a is the verb followed by ὑπó + acc. This is to be explained by the influence of Ps. 8. 7 (ὑπoκ⋯τω + gen.). The same influence is to be accepted for Paul's preservation of the past tense ὑπέταεν, where in this context one would expect a future tense. But do both features, together with γ⋯ρ (see n. 46), suffice for causing us to paraphrase: What I (Paul) describe in vv. 25–26 has to occur because Scripture says …? One could ask, in the words of Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament’, in NTS 7 (1960–1961), 297–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar, whether v. 27a is one of the ‘…explicit quotations of the Old Testament in the New, which are directly intended to be such, but which lack an introductory formula …’ (p. 304). But the crucial question remains if the ‘illogical’ past tense ὑπέταεν, certainly caused by dependence on Ps. 8. 7, necessarily carries with it Paul's preservation of the Psalm's subject, i.e. God. We do not think so.

[51] For ὃταν + subjunctive aorist, cf. also v. 54 in the same chapter. l Cor. 3. 4 and 1 Thess. 5. 3 have a ὃταν-construction with a subjunctive present where repetition is clearly meant. We may quote here the remarks of Moulton, J. H., A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. I: Prolegomena (Edinburgh, 3rd ed., 1908), p. 186Google Scholar: ‘One result of the aorist action has important exegetical consequences, which have been very insufficiently observed. It affects relative, temporal or conditional clauses introduced by pronoun or conjunction with ἃν … The verbs are all futuristic, and the ⋯ν ties them up to particular instances … The aorist, being future by virtue of its mood, punctiliar by its tense, and consequently describing complete action, gets a future-perfect sense in this class of sentence; and it will be found most important to note this before we admit the less rigid translation.’ Cf. also Mateos, J., El aspecto verbal en el Nuevo Testamento (Estudios de Nuevo Testamento, 1) (Madrid, 1977), pp. 116–17.Google Scholar

[52] According to v. 27b Christ will proclaim a state of affairs resulting from the completed act of subjection (perfect tense!). Although v. 27a because of its relation to Ps. 8. 7 has an aorist, its context would seem to expect a future (see our note 50); v. 27b undoubtedly stands further on the time-line. Cf. Heinrici, G., Kritisch exegetisches Handbuch über den ersten Brief an die Korinther (Meyer) (7th ed., Göttingen, 1888), p. 459Google Scholar: ‘Der Zeitpunkt des quando, ὃαν, ist der, wo das jetzt noch unausgeführte π⋯ντα ὑπέταεν ausgefüihrt und vollendet sein wird’; Bachmann, P., Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (Komm. N.T.) (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1910), p. 242Google Scholar: The expression ‘kennzeichnet sich schon durch sein verändertes Tempus und Genus verbi als etwas anderes denn eine blosse Rekapitulation von 27a’; Robertson-Plummer, l Cor (see n. 44): ‘The change from ὑπέταν to ὑπoτέτακται is in favour of the reference to a future declaration rather than to what is said in the Psalm: “have been subjected and remain in subjection”’; Senft, l Cor (see n. 16), p. 195: ‘Mais quand il [= Christ] dira [better: aura dit]’; and explanation on p. 200: v. 27b stresses ‘la signification du processus historico-eschatologique que Dieu a mis en route en ressuscitant le Christ’.

[53] In a number of manuscripts this ὃτι is even absent: P⁴⁶ B 33 630 2495 pc lat. Ir^lat Ambst.

[54] Barrett, l Cor (see n. 7), p. 359, who translates ‘Now when it (= scripture) says’, mentions the other interpretation and - it would seem somewhat underestimating this point – adds: ‘We need not however attempt to decide between these alternative possibilities, because the continuation of the sentence shows that, for the moment, Paul is not continuing the narrative but explaining Scripture, and, in particular, excluding an apparently possible false interpretation of his text.’ For the whole of (2), cf. Bachmann, l Cor (see n. 52), pp. 442–3, who concludes the discussion as follows: ‘Als Subjekt zu εἴπη bleibt dann nur Christus oder auch Gott in dem Sinne übrig, dass ὃταν auf den künftigen Zeitpunkt weist, wo dieser oder jener erklären wird, dass alles nun wirklich (Perfektum!) unterworfen und also die von Gott bestimmte Höhe erreicht sei’; Heinrici, l. Kor (see n. 52): futurum exactum ‘dixerit’, Christ subject; Grimm, ‘Die Stelle’ (see n. 48), p. 393; Morissette, ‘Citation’ (see n. 10), p. 323, n. 8. Allo, l Cor (see n. 44), p. 409, and Wilcke, Problem (see n. 4), p. 105, n. 505, mention this explanation as a possibility.

[55] Cf. Robertson-Plummer, l Cor (see n. 44), p. 356: ‘“As the last enemy, Death is brought to nought - is done away”: present tense of what is certain.’ They also note: ‘As vv. 54, 55 show, St Paul probably has in his mind Isa. xxv. 8 and Hos. xiii. 14.’

[56] This ‘epexegetical formula’ appears also in Gal. 3. 11 but in a different sense. The ὃτι of v. 11b is causal and a quotation follows whereas v. 11a, introduced by a that-τι, anticipates the explanation. Cf. de Witt Burton, E., The Epistle to the Galatians (ICC) (Edinburgh, 1921), p. 166Google Scholar: In Gal. 3. 11 ‘the clause preceding δῇλoν is the subject of the proposition δῇλoν τι, and the following clause the proof of it, rather than the reverse …’

[57] Dupont, ‘“Assis”’ (see n. 17), p. 391.

[58] See our note 47.

[59] Cf. v. 57: ‘But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ’, and l Cor. 3. 23.

[60] Gnilka, J., Der Philipperbrief (Herders Theol. Komm. N.T.) (Freiburg-Basel-Wien, 1968), p. 209Google Scholar, who seems to accept in l Cor. 15. 27a God as subject, writes regarding Phil. 3. 21: ‘Hier aber ist es Christus selbst, der τ⋯ π⋯ντα sich unterwirft oder … sich unterwerfen kann.’ It remains strange that Luz, Geschichtsverständnis (see n. 13), p. 345, n. 101, for Phil. 3. 21 refuses the influence of Ps. 8. 7. Dupont, ‘“Assis”’ (see n. 17), p. 390, n. 171, mentions Luz's argument (liturgical tradition) but remarks: ‘L’emploi d'un vocabulaire liturgique ne s'oppose nullement à une allusion psalmique.’ Moreover, it would seem to us that Becker, Auferstehung (see n. 36), pp. 106–16, ‘Erwägungen zu Phil 3, 20–21’, in Theol. Zeitschr. 27 (1971), 16–29Google Scholar, taking up and developing arguments of other authors, is hardly right in considering Phil. 3. 20–21 as a pre-Pauline hymn (‘Gemeindelied’). On αὐτῷ (end v. 21), see Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London-New York, 1971), pp. 615–16Google Scholar: ‘The reading ἓαυτῷ, which is attested by inferior authorities, is undoubtedly a scribal modification introduced in order to provide greater precision of expression. As between accenting αὔτῷ and αὔτῷ, a majority of the Committee (despite what seems to the minority to be required by the generally accepted conventions of Greek orthography) preferred the unaspirated form, which, according to what appears to be the prevailing Hellenistic usage as reflected in papyri and inscriptions of the Imperial age, had come to function as a reflexive in addition to its normal usage …’ Cf. also Zerwick, Biblical Greek (see n. 47), nr. 210.

[61] Dupont, ‘“Assis”’ (see n. 17), p. 392, writes: ‘L’ établissement du régne de Dieu ne doit pas moins entraîner la fin du règne du Christ. Inauguré à la résurrection de Jésus, ce reg`ne est tout entier orientè vers une fin, la résurrection des morts, après laquelle il n'y aura plus de place que pour l'unique règne de Dieu, “tout en tous”.’

[62] We here note the absence of the distinction between the living and the dead, present in vv. 50–53. Perhaps it should be assumed. Cf. Barrett, l Cor (see n. 7), p. 355: ‘Christ has already been raised, a foretaste and pledge of the resurrection still to come; there will be brought to life those who belong to Christ, who will be separated into those who have already died, who must be in the simplest sense brought to life, and those whose mortality must be clothed with immortality …’ Cf. also 1 Thess. 4. 16–17: ‘And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord.’

[63] Hay, Glory (see n. 19), p. 124, writes: ‘Ps 110.1c must have seemed invaluable to the apostle precisely because he could find in its ‘until’ a clear scriptural prophecy of a time gap between the onset of Christ's reign and the consummation.’ See also Luz, Geschichtsverständnis (see n. 13), p. 345, who points out that in the tradition of Phil. 2. 9–11 and also in Eph. 1. 20–23 and 1 Pet. 3. 22 the subjection of powers under Christ is seen in connection with his resurrection or exaltation (whereas in 1 Cor. 15. 23–28 a time period until his parousia is supposed).

[64] See Hay, Glory (see n. 19), pp. 19–33: Chapter 1 ‘Origin and Interpretations in Jewish Tradition’. On pp. 29–30 he refers to and discusses Billerbeck's 18th excursus ‘Der 110. Psalm in der altrabbinischen Literatur’ in Strack, H., Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, Vol. 4, (München, 1928), pp. 452–65Google Scholar. He qualifies Billerbeck's conclusion ‘that messianic interpretation was the norm for rabbis of the first century’ (p. 29). ‘The contention that first-century Jews would not readily think of anyone in connection with Ps 110 except the messiah may presume too much about what Jews of two millenia ago would have thought “reasonable”. Since evidence definitely links the psalm with Abraham, David, and even Hezekiah, it would seem that exegesis in terms of a future messiah was not, after all, inevitable. On balance, then, it seems fair to suppose that in the NT era a messianic interpretation of Ps 110 was current in Judaism, although we cannot know how widely it was accepted’ (p. 30). Fitzmyer, J. A., in his otherwise laudatory review of Hay's book in CBQ 36 (1974), 594–5Google Scholar, is even less affirmative. He does not agree with Hay's argumentation for a possible pre-Christian messianic interpretation, which is based on Dan. 7. 9–14 and Rabbi Akiba. ‘… we still do not have any clear evidence from sources …’ (p. 595).

[65] But see Luz, Geschichtsverständnis (see n. 13), p. 345: ‘vielleicht bereits im Judentum messianisch interpretiert’, with reference to Scott, E. F., The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians (Moffatt) (London, 1930), p. 158 (however, Scott must add: ‘keine Belege’)Google Scholar. In his interesting article Moloney, F. J., ‘The Targum on Ps. 8 and the New Testament’, in Salesianum 37 (1975), 326–36Google Scholar, first plainly states: ‘There is a long leap from the original hymn which celebrated God's infinite majesty (vv. 2–5) and the dignity and power to which he had raised man (vv. 6–8), to the individual, messianic application of that same hymn in the New Testament’ (p. 328). Although fully recognizing that the Aramaic of the Targum is late and allowing for some degree of uncertainty in his reasoning, yet given the changes introduced by the Targumist (esp. the individualization of the enemies in v. 3 and of the generic ‘man’ to the specific ‘the Son of Man’ in v. 5a and the inclusion of the ‘works’ in v. 5b and Leviathan in v. 9), Moloney concludes: ‘It appears that we have in the Aramaic translation of Ps. 8 an individual messianic interpretation which presents “the Son of Man” as some sort of messianic figure’ (p. 336). After this study was submitted another article by Moloney appeared: ‘The Reinterpretation of Psalm VIII and the Son of Man Debate’, in NTS 27 (1980–1981), 656–72Google Scholar, which presents some additional material and situates the topic in the wider discussion of the use of the Old Testament in the New.

[66] Cf. Eph. 1. 22 and 1 Pet. 3. 22, but in these passages it is God who subjects the enemies under the feet of Christ, and it is at Christ's resurrection that this happened.

[67] Just as other Jewish authors did with Adam. Cf. Brandenburger, E., Adam und Christus. Exegestisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Röm. 5, 12–21 (l. Kor. 15) (WMANT, 7) (Neukirchen, 1962), pp. 45–64.Google Scholar

[68] There may also be Gen.-influence within 1 Cor. 15. 35–41. Compare v. 38 with Gen. 1. 10–12 (γπ⋯ρµα, κατ⋯ γ⋯νοc), v. 39 with Gen. 1. 20–28 (beasts and men; see also Gen. 2. 7, 19–20), v. 41 with Gen. 1. 14–17 (sun, moon and stars). Morissette, ‘Citation’ (see n. 10), p. 327, n. 18, finds - it would seem less likely - influence from Ps. 8 on v. 39 (men and beasts, vv. 5, 8–9), v. 41 (moon and stars, v. 4), and v. 43a (glory and honour, v. 6).

[69] See pp. 502–4 on the ‘implications’ of vv. 12–19 and 29–32. Over against the future tenses in vv. 22 and 49 the present ἕστιν κα⋯ should be explained as a thetic statement abstracting from the concrete historical sequence. Cf. e.g. Schottroff, L., Der Glaubende und die feindliche Welt. Beobachtungen zum gnostischen Dualismus und seiner Bedeutung für Paulus und das Johannesevangelium (WMANT, 37) (Neukirchen, 1970), p. 141.Google Scholar

[70] It has been asked why the application of v. 45 does not take up the terms of v. 44b: σώµαψυχικóν and σώµα πνυυµατικóν. More specifically, why is it not stated in v. 45c that Christ became a σώµα πνυυµατικóν? Besides the reasons for Paul's choice of the active ‘life-giving’ spirit, it should be recognized that after the qualification of the first Adam by ζώσα it would have been less appropriate to call the last Adam a πνυυµατικóν. It probably was Paul's use of scripture in v. 45b which conditioned his terminology in v. 45c. On the other hand: ‘Durch den Gegensatz zum πν⋯µα ζωοποιο⋯ν empfängt ψυχ⋯ ζώσα bei Paulus den Sinn des Minderwertigen, Beschränkten, Vergänglichen, den es in der Genesisstelle nicht hat’ (Schmid, ‘Zitate’ [see n. 1], p. 171). See also our text below and n. 74. Further, over against the first Adam of v. 45b the Adam of v. 45c is called ‘last’, not ‘second’ as might have been expected, because here the point is that he is the supreme result in the ascending development. There will be no other Head of the human race. Also ‘last’ has an eschatological connotation (cf. vv. 26, 52). At the parousia, the ‘last’ Adam brings about a whole new form of existence.

[71] Cf. Dunn, J. D. G., ‘I Corinthians 15:45 - last Adam, life-giving spirit’, in Lindars, B., Smalley, S. S. (eds.), Christ and Spirit in the New Testament. Fs. C. F. D. Moule (Cambridge, 1973), pp. 127–41, esp. p. 131Google Scholar: ‘… the point and force of the citation of Gen. 2. 7 lies not in the actual Genesis passage itself, but in the contrast between that Adam and the last Adam - a contrast drawn from Paul's own understanding of Christ’.

[72] Barrett, l Cor (see n. 7), p. 375.

[73] Is Paul here dependent on the vision of the one like a son of man who is coming on the clouds of heaven (Dan. 7. 13)? This possibility may become a probability if in v. 47 we were to supplement the verb ‘comes’ (instead of ‘is’); so Barrett, l Cor (see n. 7), pp. 375–6. Otherwise e.g. Wilckens, U., ‘Christus der “letzte Adam” und der Menschensohn. Theologische Überlegungen zum überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Problem der paulinischen Adam-Christus-Antithese’, in Pesch, R., Schnackenburg, R. (eds.), Jesus der Menschensohn. Fs. A. Vögtle (Freiburg, 1975), pp. 387–402: ‘From heaven’ comes from the ‘Urmenschvorstellung’ (p. 388, n. 5).Google Scholar

[74] Cf. Dupont, J., Gnosis. La connaissance religieuse dans les épîtres de saint Paul (Louvain-Paris, 2nd ed., 1960), p. 172Google Scholar: ‘Mais comment l'idée de psychè appelle-t-elle, en antithèse, celle de pneuma? Sans employer le mot pneuma, le texte biblique parlait du souffle divin qui a donné la vie à l'homme. II était aisé de mettre en opposition le souffle vivifiant de Dieu et l'âme vivante de l'homme. Le souffle divin était un pneuma. Paul n'avait qu'à faire le Christ détenteur de ce pneuma vivifiant.’ Cf. Wilckens, U., ‘Zu 1 Kor 2, 1–16’, in Andresen, C., Klein, G. (eds.), Theologia Crucis - Signum Crucis. Fs. E. Dinkler (Tübingen, 1979), pp. 501–37Google Scholar: ‘… Paulus (nimmt) offenbar die Mitteilung des Textes, Gott habe Adam πνο⋯ν ζωῇζeingehaucht, recht gewaltsam aus dem Kontext der Schöpfung des ersten Menschen heraus und macht sie zum Spezifikum des “letzten” Menschen, der als “Leben-schaffender” Geist Adam als “lebendiger Seele” gegenübertritt’ (p. 531).

[75] Cf. Wilckens, ‘Christus’ (see n. 73), p. 389: ‘eine höchst eigenwillige Umdeutung von Gn 1, 26f’. On pp. 532–3 he states that in vv. 44b-49a Paul deliberately avoids an allusion to Gen. 1. 26–27.

[76] For the thesis that the heavenly man Christ was pre-existent, see now Hanson, A. T., ‘The Midrash in II Corinthians 3: A Reconsideration’, in Journ. Study N.T. (1980) nr. 9, pp. 2–28Google Scholar. For l Cor. 15. 45–49, see esp. pp. 9–10: ‘… when Paul called Christ “the man from heaven”, he must have thought of him as having been always the man from heaven’ (p. 9); ‘… Paul thought of Christ as the heavenly man from all eternity, to be described as “the second man” because he was only fully revealed as such at the resurrection’ (p. 10).

[77] Cf. Schottroff, Glaubende (see n. 69), pp. 116–17: ‘… es sind dieselben Menschen, von denen gesagt werden kann, dass sie zu Christus gehören, bzw. sie zu Adam gehören’ (p. 116).

[78] ‘Midrash’ (see n. 76), p. 23 and cf. e.g. Wilckens, ‘Zu 1 Kor 2, 1–16’ (see n. 74), p. 517: ‘…eine immanente Exegese des zu erklärenden Textes (sollte) allen religionsgeschichtlichen Vergleichen vorausgehen …’

[79] Güttgemanns, E., Der leidende Apostel und sein Herr (FRLANT, 83) (Göttingen, 1966), pp. 70–2.Google Scholar

[80] Cf. e.g. Barth, G., ‘Erwägungen zu 1. Korinther 15, 20–28’, in Evang. Theol. 30 (1970), 515–27Google Scholar: ‘zeitliche Distanzierung’ (p. 521); Brandenburger, Adam (see n. 67), p. 71: ‘Die Auferstehung der Toten in ihrer Zukünftigkeit ist der Tenor dieses Abschnitts’; Schottroff, Glaubende (see n. 69), 115–69 (all authors with their own emphases). We may also refer to Schlier, H., Der Römerbrief (Herders Theol. Komm. N.T.) (Freiburg-Basel-Wien, 1977), pp. 186–9Google Scholar: ‘Paulus wendet sich offen-sichtlich gegen eine von den korinthischen Enthusiasten vertretene Adamvorstellung’ (p. 187), which ‘Vorstellung’ he reconstructs and qualifies as gnostic.

[81] In 1 Cor. 15 Paul seems to be dealing with opponents who denied the possibility of life after death and manifested a certain affinity with Alexandrian Wisdom traditions. Was the resurrection of Christ accepted by them? Most exegetes are rather firm in assuming this. However, a careful examination of vv. 1–12 reveals that Paul's opponents may have doubted Jesus' bodily resurrection as well. In his recent article, R. J. Sider, ‘St. Paul's Understanding of the Nature and Significance of the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians XV 1–19’, in NT 19 (1977), 124–41, points to four features of the text. (1) In v. 2 we read: ‘If you retain the gospel in the sense in which I preached it to you’. ‘There is the clear implication that some at least (see v. 12) may not be clinging to Paul's gospel in the precise sense in which Paul preached it’ (p. 130). (2) The same verse ends with ‘unless you believed in vain’. ‘Is this another indication that some have abandoned part of Paul's teaching?’ (p. 130). Paul has to remind them of the basic facts. (3) In v. 11 the verb κηρύσσοµ∈ν is in the present tense and ⋯πιστυ⋯ωατυ in the aorist. ‘If the aorist here is punctiliar, then it must be a genuine hint that Paul fears they no longer believe’ (p. 130). (4) In v. 12 Paul argues: Since Christ is preached as raised from the dead, you must also agree that the believers will arise. He does not say: Since you believe. ‘It is precisely this preaching to which, Paul fears, the Corinthians are no longer clinging (v. 2). It is not at all indisputable that Paul assumes a common assumption in v. 12. He may simply be arguing from the fact of the kerygma, which, he holds, ought to be authoritative for Christians’ (p. 131). If this text analysis is correct, it follows that ‘Paul cited the eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus in order to establish the facticity of Jesus’ bodily resurrection because he suspected that some at Corinth had come to doubt this teaching’ (p. 131). We may refer to the recent article of Wedderburn, A. J. M., ‘The Problem of the Denial of the Resurrection in I Corinthians XV’, in NT 23 (1981), 228–41Google Scholar, who points to 4. 8 and 6. 13 and characterizes the denier's position both as Hellenistic unbelief in the lasting quality of the body and as Christian belief in their special eschatological endowment with the Spirit already now experienced. He recognizes that such an explanation hardly agrees with the statement of v. 12 and hence postulates Paul's misunderstanding and misrepresentation. Cf. also Thiselton, A. C., ‘Realized Eschatology in Corinth’, in NTS 24 (1977–1978), 510–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[82] According to Doughty, D. J., ‘The Presence and Future of Salvation in Corinth’, in ZNW 66 (1975), 61–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Paul's discussion in 1 Cor. 15 ‘has to do not with the presence and future of the resurrection, but rather with the reality of the resurrection and future life as such’ (p. 76).

[83] The passages in Philo usually referred to are Legum allegoriae I 31 and De opificio mundi 134. Some recent publications which defend Philonic (and/or Alexandrian Wisdom) influence on Paul: Daniélou, J., Philon d'Alexandrie (Les temps et les destins) (Paris, 1958), pp. 1990-203, esp. 203Google Scholar; Horsley, R. A., ‘“How can someone say that there is no Resurrection of the dead?” Spiritual Elitism in Corinth’, in NT 20 (1978), 203–31Google Scholar; ‘Pneumatikos vs. Psychikos. Distinctions of Spiritual Status among the Corinthians’, in Harv. Theol. Rev. 83 (1976), 269–88Google Scholar; ‘Wisdom of Word and Words of Wisdom in Corinth’, in CBQ 39 (1977), 224–39Google Scholar; Pearson, B. A., The pneumatikos-psychikos Terminology in l Corinthians. A Study in the Theology of the Corinthian Opponents of Paul and its Relation to Gnosticism (Soc. Bibl. Lit. Diss. Ser., 12) (Missoula, 1973)Google Scholar; and esp. Sandelin, Auseinandersetzung (see n. 4). It is sometimes maintained that the conception of the heavenly and the earthly man did not originate with Philo because of the rather matter of fact way in which he speaks about them on the basis of the text of Gen. 2. 7; cf. e.g. Brandenburger, Adam (see n. 67), pp. 124–31; Conzelmann, l. Kor (see n. 21), pp. 340–1. Wedderburn, A. J. M., ‘Philo's “Heavenly man”’, in NT 15 (1973), 301–26Google Scholar, who on the one hand is not willing to accept influence of a gnostic redeemer-myth upon Philo, opines on the other that in 1 Cor. 15. 46 Paul is not polemicizing against a Philonic type of exegesis - Philo ‘would not wish to stress the priority of the spiritual man or nature’ (p. 302) - but ‘against an unrealistic spiritualizing of this present life’ (p. 302). See also n. 81.

[84] Dupont, Gnosis (see n. 74), pp. 172–80, stresses his conclusion that in either case - Paul or Corinthian community - the Gen.-influence, and not that of the pagan ‘Urmensch’ myth, should be assumed. He also writes: ‘S'il y a une pointe polémique dans l'insistance de saint Paul sur l'antériorité de l'homme “psychique” et terrestre par rapport á l'homme céleste, on ne saurait mieux la comprendre que par une interprétation dans le genre de celle de Philon … Si donc polémique il y a, c'est entre deux manières d'expliquer le texte sacré’ (p. 173). This position is criticized by Schottroff, Glaubende (see n. 69), pp. 167–8, who denies that Gen. 2. 7 was the origin of the antithesis and states that gnostic dualism has to be reckoned with (see our text above). But Hengel, M., Der Sohn Gottes (Tübingen, 1975), p. 118, n. 133Google Scholar, who explains Paul's reasoning as a struggle against the protological speculations of the diaspora Jews, peremptorily states: ‘Nach einem gnostischen Hintergrund sollte man nicht mehr Ausschau halten.’

[85] According to Winter, M., Pneumatiker und Psychiker in Korinth. Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund von 1. Kor. 2, 6–3, 4 (Marb. Theol. Stud., 12) (Marburg, 1975), pp. 230–1Google Scholar, Paul's dependence on gnosticism in regard to the antithesis ‘psychic-spiritual’ is to be recognized. But see Horsley, ‘“How can”’ (see n. 83), pp. 217–18: ‘In comparison with I Cor. xv 45–54 we find in these Philonic discussions of the two types of mankind all of the principal terminology paralleled, with the exception of the antithesis of “spiritual” and “psychic” - that is, all of the other pairs of antitheses (corruptible vs. incorruptible, mortal vs. immortal, earthly vs. heavenly) as well as the “image” motif. Moreover, as evident in I Cor. xv 45, the distinction is based on interpretation of the creation account, Gen. ii 7 in particular.’ However, he himself leaves the origin undecided. For the two-man schema, cf. C. Colpe, ‘υἱòζ το⋯⋯νθρώπου’, in TWNT, Vol. VIII (1969), p. 474: ‘Solange wir nun von einem vorgegebenen Schema vom ersten und zweiten Adam kein sicheres Zeugnis haben, ist es leichter anzunehmen, dass die Antitypik in v 21: ⋯πυιδ⋯ γ⋯ρ δí ⋯νθρώπου θ⋯νατοζ, καí δí ⋯νθρώπου ⋯ν⋯στασιζ νυκρώνhier erst entsteht, als dass sie ein etwa vorgegebenes Schema füllt’; Wilckens, ‘Zu 1 Kor 2, 1–16’ (see n. 74), p. 534: ‘So sehr also die bei Philo greifbare jüdische Auslegungstradition der biblischen Schöpfung des Menschen die Voraussetzung der paulinischen Argumentation in l Kor 15 und in l Kor 2 ist, so sehr lässt sich die paulinische Antithese zwischen Psychischen und Pneumatischen nur von dem eschatologisch-christologischen Ansatz des Paulus her erklären.’

[86] Gillman, J., Transformation into the Future Life. A Study of 1 Cor 15: 50–53, its Context and Related Passages (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation Cath. Univ. Leuven, 1980), pp. 314–15.Google Scholar In many items of this paper I am indebted to discussions with my former student.

[87] Cf. Conzelmann, 1. Kor (see n. 21), pp. 319–20. The apocalyptic messianic kingdom is transferred to the present, before the parousia: ‘Es ist christologisch die Zeit der Unterwerfung der Mächte, anthropologisch die Zeit der Kirche …’ (p. 320).