^{page 512 note 1} Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (London: A & C Black, 1968) 381.Google Scholar

^{page 512 note 2} Paul is not concerned (against Conzelmann, H., 1 Corinthians [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969] 291) ‘to establish the fundamental equality in the destiny of the two groups’. The issue is the reality of resurrection.Google Scholar

^{page 512 note 3} Taking μόνον with ᾠν τ ζω ταύτ in v. 19 since έν τ ζω⋯ ταύτῃ) presupposes a contrast with the life to come and is therefore logically qualified here by ‘only’.Google Scholar

^{page 513 note 1} Barrett, , First Corinthians, 355.Google Scholar

^{page 513 note 2} The statement that ‘God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power’ in 6.14 also cannot be as easily dismissed as Conzelmann would like (1 Corinthians, 290 n. 13).Google Scholar

^{page 514 note 1} Jeremias, J., New Testament Studies 2, 151–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 514 note 2} Thus Ridderbos, H., Paul: An outline of his theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966) 546.Google Scholar

^{page 514 note 3} See Grosheide, F. W., The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953) 391.Google Scholar

^{page 514 note 4} See 1 Thess 4.17.Google Scholar

^{page 515 note 1} The alternative is to follow Weiss and take the second πάντες in v. 51 in a restricted sense, i.e. all those who remain (Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 290 n. 14). But the structure of the sentence does not allow us to differentiate in this way between the two πάντες, both of which must refer to all believers, dead and alive, otherwise Paul would be saying that no more believers will die (Weiss: ‘I do not venture to explain it thus’).Google Scholar

^{page 515 note 2} See, for example, Blass, and Debrunner, , A Greek Grammar of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1961) 433.Google Scholar

^{page 516 note 1} See Ridderbos, Paul, 534.Google Scholar

^{page 516 note 2} For example, Martin, R. P., 2 Corinthians (Waco: Word Books, 1986) 104–8.Google Scholar

^{page 517 note 1} The context of the quotation (‘I believed, and so I spoke’) is perhaps not as irrelevant as Barrett thinks (Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians [London: A & C Black, 1973] 143). The verses immediately preceding it (the end of Ps 114 in LXX, but the same Psalm [116] in the MT) speak of the psalmist's deliverance from affliction and death.Google Scholar

^{page 517 note 2} άνακαινοται suggests that the inward nature is in fact also liable to decay. It is best understood, then, as man as he hopes or despairs rather than as a more material anthropological or eschatological concept. It is the hoping for ‘glory’ and the ‘heavenly dwelling’ (5. 2) that is renewed.Google Scholar

^{page 517 note 3} Note Collange, J.-F., Enigmes de la deuxième èpître de Paul aux Corinthiens (Cambridge: University Press, 1972) 181: of γάρ in 5. 1 he says, ‘Cette conjonction est importante, car elle marque bien qu'on ne peut dissocier 5:1 de ce qui précède: il y a relation de cause à effet entre ces deux ensembles.’Google Scholar

^{page 518 note 1} This is the point of the awkwardly attached το σκήνους, which is appositional and stresses the physical weakness of the building: thus, ‘our earthly dwelling — no more than atent’.Google Scholar

^{page 518 note 2} Enigmes, 199.Google Scholar

^{page 518 note 3} Translation of εω as ‘because’ does not take proper account of the relative, which refers back not forwards; thus the groaning is a cause, not a consequence, of the wishing. See Moule, C. F. D., An Idiom-Book of NT Greek (Cambridge: University Press, 1953) 132 for the translation, though, misreading the context, he does not apply it in this particular case.Google Scholar

^{page 519 note 1} V. 3, therefore, is neither parenthetic (Collange, Enigmes, 199) nor an ‘afterthought’ (Plummer, A., Second Epistle to the Corinthians [T & T Clark, 1915] 147).Google Scholar

^{page 519 note 2} A ‘polemical excursus’, Bultmann, cited by Martin, 2 Corinthians, 111, who agrees.Google Scholar

^{page 519 note 3} Collange prefers a double sense (Enigmes, 182), but most commentators assume a general application.Google Scholar

^{page 519 note 4} Martin, 2 Corinthians, 102Google Scholar; Barrett, Second Corinthians, 150.Google Scholar

^{page 519 note 5} The use of στενάζειν in Rom 8. 23 supports this more negative interpretation, against Martin, 2 Corinthians, 104. The groaning of creation (συνστενάζει) is an expression of its bondage to decay (v. 21) and the accompanying συνωδίνεν clearly suggests pain. The groaning of believers is parallel. The phrase τήν άπολύτρωσιν το⋯ σώματος ήμν confirms both the context of physical affliction and the extent of the affinity of this passage with 2 Cor 5. 1–5.Google Scholar

^{page 519 note 6} The force of the εἳ in v. 3 needs to be taken into consideration. On the one hand, it satisfies the parallelism, extending the ‘wishing’ to the negative aspect, as is the case more clearly in v. 4 (‘we do not wish to take off’). On the other, it indicates the fact that Paul knew his wish was unrealistic. Ridderbos objects to the conditional meaning of εἳ γε καί precisely on these grounds (Paul, 502 n. 41) since it would set v. 3 in conflict with the certainty of v. 1. But whereas v. 1 is dogmatic, what follows is a hypothetical pre-emption of the dogmatic and therefore properly conditional.Google Scholar

^{page 519 note 7} Second Corinthians, 153.Google Scholar

^{page 520 note 1} We might also note that, if he had had the parousia in mind, it would surely have been more explicitly the object of his longing, whereas in fact he carefully avoids any allusion to it.Google Scholar

^{page 520 note 2} The only other possible reference for ‘this very thing’ is the future glory, which is how it is usually understood. But if this were so, we would expect ‘He who prepared this for us…’. Moreover, the emphatic nature of the expression seems to require something unusual or unexpected as its referent.Google Scholar

^{page 520 note 3} Martin, 2 Corinthians, 113.Google Scholar