the grace of a morally beautiful character; and what Dionysius said of the oration against Leptines, that it was the most graceful of all orations, might be said of every sermon of Massillon, if one did not commonly, in the earnestness and power of the orator, forget the gracefulness of his style. Even those who place little value upon such qualities, will not perhaps be so unjust, as to blame it in him, who does not seek it from self-love, but possesses it as the necessary bloom of a beautiful nature. I certainly will not undervalue Bossuet and Bourdaloue, in comparison with Massillon, in respect to style; but I may be allowed perhaps to say, only to designate the peculiarities of these three men, that Bossuet speaks ever from the bishop's throne; that Bourdatoue appears surrounded with the scholastic atmosphere of a Jesuit college; that Massillon alone speaks with his audience the cultivated language of society. He has perhaps too many words, and dwells possibly too long on a thought, but this fault flows from the same source as the excellences of his style, from the warmth and fulness of his heart.

ARTICLE II.

DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.

Translated from De Wette's Commentary on the XV. Chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. 2d edition. 1845.*

THE occasion of treating this subject was, that some in Corinth denied the truth of the resurrection of the dead (v. 12); but we do not certainly know, what was the character of these doubts and in what connection they stood. It appears, that these Corinthian Christians did not deny the fact of the resurrection of Christ, because the apostle, in his argument, lays this at the foundation, and indeed expressly certifies it, but does not seek to establish it against objections.1 This conclusion however is not entirely certain, since the apostle writes for the majority of the Corinthian Christians, who had not yet been possessed by those doubts, although dangerously affected by them, rather than against the authors of those doubts (Flatt). In verse 35, it is

*For some account of De Wette and of his merits as a commentator, see Bibliotheca Sacra, No. XVIII. p. 263.

Ziegler, Theologische Abhandlungen, II. 93. Knapp, scripta varii argumenti, etc. p. 316. Meyer.

1849.]

Importance of the Resurrection of Christ.

27

true, he seems to have regard to an objection from them; but this is of such a character, that it could be made from various quarters. Meyer concludes, from the anti-materialistic view of the resurrection, which the apostle maintains in verses 35 and following, that the principles of the opponents were anti-materialistic; but the opposite conclusion would rather be the true one. See the remarks upon these verses. Jesus, in refuting the Sadducees, Matt. 22: 30, views the subject in the same manner. Hence those in Corinth, who doubted the doctrine, might formerly have been Sadducees,' (for, that such persons must be answered with passages from the Pentateuch, rests upon an erroneous view of Matt. 22: 31, 32,) if every intermixture of Sadduceeism with Christianity were not so improbable. Since also the derivation of those doubts from Essenism (Mosheim) has little or no probability, we are limited in our conjectures to the circle of Gentile Christians in Corinth. That the doctrine of the resurrection opposed the Grecian mode of thinking, we know from Acts 17: 32. The supposition of Epicurean principles (cf. Acts 17: 18) in those at Corinth, who denied the resurrection, is decidedly rejected by Neander (Apost. Gesch. I. 315), by Meyer and others, because such principles stand in too great opposition to Christianity, and because the apostle, in verse 32, adduces the Epicurean manner of life, not as the source, but as the consequence of the doubts, which he opposes, and indeed as an argument against them. But still he warns them, in verse 33, against "evil communications," which can be no other than the intercourse of those who doubted this doctrine. As sensuality could creep into the church, so also could Epicurean levity. That these were Gentile Christians of philosophic cultivation, is not very probable, considering the small number of such Christians in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:26) and the absence in this chapter of all polemic opposition to worldly wisdom. It is a false view to regard them, with Grotius, Usteri, Billroth, and Olshausen, as allegorists like Hymeneus and Philetus (2 Tim. 2: 17, 18), because in the argument of the apostle no trace of an opposition to such a tendency is to be discovered (Meyer). Vs. 1-11. The apostle sets out from the fact of the resurrection of Christ as a main point of the gospel, and lays that at the foundation of his argument. Vs. 1, 2. propio] I make known. Theophylact, Oecumenius: 7ovréotiv ¿zavaμμvýozoo, and so the most; Rückert : I call attention to, contrary to the literal sense of the word, cf. 12, 3. 2 Cor. 8: 1. Gal. 1: 11. The apostle begins, as it were, anew with the announcement of the gospel. zò evayy.] is not to be limited to the

Heumann, Mosheim in part, Michaelis, Storr, Knapp and Flatt. * Ziegler, Neander, Meyer and others.

proclamation of Christ's death and resurrection (contrary to Rck. and Mey.); these points are only rendered especially prominent by the v πρώτοις in vs. 3 seq. ὅ καὶ παρελάβετε κ. τ. λ.] The και three times used designates in each case something added to the preceding thought (Meyer); and indeed there is a climax in the repetition. nagelάßere denotes the fact of perceiving (intellectually), historical faith, corresponding to the παραδιδόναι = εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, cf. v. 3. Gal. 1: 19. Phil. 4: 9, and often; according to the common explanation, it denotes the believing reception (Jno. 1: 11), orηxare the faithful abiding therein (cf. Ro. 5: 2.), owlεode, ye are saved (of the certain future), the salutary effect. rivi-xaténetɛ] contains a condition of the latter, since zív hóy. ɛvny. vuiv, for the sake of emphasis, is placed first: if ye hold fast the doctrine as I have announced it to you. Contrary to Heidenreich, Billroth and others, who unite τίνι λόγ. εὐηγγ. ὑμῖν with ὁ εὐηγγ. ὑμῖν, (see Rückert and Meyer). λόγος is here to be taken of the substance (Rückert, Meyer) and not the reason (Estius, Kypke, Wetstein, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Heidenreich), since nagédoxa v. 3, and what actually follows, leads us only to the former, viz. the substance. Exròs-iriorɛvoarɛ] unless (14: 5) ye have in vain (Gal. 3: 4. 4: 11) become believers.

If now this clause, which forms an exception, is connected with ooCεove, this does not suppose "the case (inconceivable to the Christian consciousness) that they, notwithstanding the xazéɣer, could still lose the fruit of faith" (Mey.); but it does suppose the truly conceivable case, that they had indeed received and held fast the gospel, but had not made a fruitful application of it to themselves; but with this connection, the more appropriate explanation would be, without reason, temere, as in Col. 2: 18.2 Thphlet. Oec. Calv. Est. Bllr. connect with xazέxerɛ, so that ɛiz denotes the being in vain, in reference to that; with this view we must indeed make an addition to the sentence: xarézɛre dè návros (Thphlet); and this on account of the position is the more suitable. Accordingly by the ei xaréx. the danger is indicated, that they might not have firmly adhered to the Gospel, and this apprehension, by the izzòs ei μǹ x. 7. λ, is carried out, as it were with horror, to the worst, scarcely supposable case, that their reception of faith had been entirely in vain.

Vs. 3 and following. Specification (not proof, Mey.) of the riv λóyop, in the principal points. ráo] namely (Bllr.). ¿v nqwrois] in

1 Beza, Flt. Olsh. Rck. Mey.; but which would not render necessary any insertion in brackets of the rivi-kaTeXETE, as in Griesbach and Scholz.

2 Rackert, but who with Theodoret supposes the reference to verse 14, which seems over-hasty.

1849.]

Appearances of our Lord.

29

26

primis, as the principal points: οἱονεὶ γὰρ θεμέλιός ἐστι πάσης τῆς TOTES (Thрhlet), not: doxis (Chrys.); not: among the first, Masc. (Rck.). o xai nagéλaßor] what I have also received in communication. From whom? see on 11: 23. vnio r. άμαor. ημov] on account of our sins Gal. 1: 4, namely in order to atone for them, Ro. 3: 25, in other places simply vnèg yμor 1: 13. Ro. 5: 8 and often. zard v. yoap.] cf. Lu. 22: 37. 24: 25 and following, Acts 8: 35. 26: 22, 23.—V. 4. ¿yńyeqrai] The Perf., and not the Aorist as before and after, because it still continues in its consequences (Mey.). κατὰ τ. ye.] refers as well to ¿ráæŋ (Isa, 53: 9), as to ¿yýy. (Isa. 53: 10. Ps. 16: 10. cf. Acts 2: 25. 13: 34, 35).

V. 5. Kno] Lu. 24: 34, compare explanation of John, p. 212. Tois dodexa] Jno. 20: 19 and following, Lu. 24: 36 and following. dodexa denotes the apostles as a whole, or as a body, a collegium (like Decemviri, etc.), not according to the exact number; for at that time there were only eleven. Chrys. Thphlet. Oec. include Matthew with those who saw the Lord (namely after the Ascension); but it is a previous appearance that is here spoken of. V. 6. The specifications which now follow are not made dependent upon nagéλaßov by ott, but only indeed by a change of construction; for the apostle must also have received these facts. By inera, eira he unquestionably intends to designate the succession of time, cf. oxarov v. 8. ἐπάνω] over, more than, out of the grammatical regimen, Win. § 38. 5. raxoolois àdeλçois] five hundred brethren, believers. A difficulty arises from the fact, that in Acts 1: 15, only one hundred and twenty disciples are mentioned; all however were not perhaps assembled there, or only so many were known to Luke. The testimony of the

πεντ

apostle decides for the correctness of the fact. ἐφ' άπαξ] at once, Theodoret : ou xað Eva, áîλ óμov nãow, Vulgate, simul; so most; Bretschneider and Mey. : once for all, cf. Ro. 6: 10. Heb. 7:27. 9: 2. 10: 10; yet, on account of the great number, the former signification is more full of meaning. οἱ πλείους] the majority. μένουσιν] are living. This appearance of Christ, which the evangelists do not mention, Olsh. Flatt and others connect with that in Matt. 28: 16 seq.; yet this evangelist speaks only of the Eleven.

V. 7. 'Iaxoßo] probably the brother of the Lord, Gal. 1: 19. (Chrys. Thdrt. Thphlet. Oec. and the common opinion.) Grotius compares the account from the Hebrew-Gospel in Jerome, de vir. ill. c. 2. (Einl. ins N. T. p. 71), but there it is the very first appearance of the risen Lord, that is spoken of. rois-пão] seems to include τοῖς—πᾶσιν] James, so that if the former supposition is correct, ázóorohoi is used

in a more extended sense (Chrys. Thdrt. Thphlet. Oec. Calv. Bengel, Mey. and others.)

V. 8. návrov] this is commonly regarded as Masc., and Meyer limits it to the apostles, because Paul designates himself as the least of them. But must we not connect návrov as Neut. with ox. meaning last of all (cf. Mark 12: 29. Grb. T.)? So návrov μákova Plat. Prot. p. 330. A. woлeqeì ro ixrqwóμarı] as it were a child prematurely born, the immature fruit,1 a designation (according to Bllr.) of his violent, as it were, not natural call, but according to that which follows, of his unworthiness, since those prematurely born are weakly. The article places the conception in a definite relation to the apostleship, as it were, a premature birth as an apostle. Knapp and Rink, following older writers in Wlf., erroneously read zq, equivalent to zivi, without any analogy in the N. T. (Mey.). The explanation of Spätling2 is contrary to the use of language; otherwise it would fitly correspond to the late call of the apostle and also to the predicate o éháɣioros r. άn. The appearance of Christ, of which the apostle speaks, is unquestionably that mentioned in Acts ix.

-

Vs. 9, 10. not precisely a parenthesis (Grb. Scho.), but a digression in explanation of the expression "premature birth.” os ovx eiμì x. v. 2.] as who, because, ixavós] Matt. 3: 11. 2 Cor. 3: 5. xahɛiodai άn.] to bear the honorable name of apostle. xάqızı-ɛov] but through the grace of God, notwithstanding my unworthiness. With the humiliating feeling of personal unworthiness is united the consciousness of the higher power active upon and in it, and this guides thus to the purified self-feeling of one's desert. où xevý] not in vain, without result. пεQIOσóτεQOV] Acc. Neutr., governed by έxon. αὐτῶν πάντων] “than they altogether, not: than each one of them, as commonly." (Mey.) Although this explanation can be historically justified, still it is not certain and necessary. έxoníaca] labored (Gal. 4: 11), not: suffered (Chrys. Thphlet.). ovx-quoi] to prevent misunderstanding, as if he had said εκοπίασα in an egotistic, vain-glorious sense. By οὐκ ἐγὼ— άλλά (as in Matt. 10: 20. Mark 9: 37. Jno. 12: 44. Acts 5: 4. 1 Thess. 4: 8) merely the subordination of the human activity to the Divine is expressed, not the suspension of the former. Augustin de grat. et lib. arb. c. 3. Non ego autem, i. e. non solus, sed gratia Dei mecum. Ac per hoc nec gratia Dei sola, nec ipse solus, sed gratia Dei cum illo.

1 Citations in verification in Wetst., attic auß2opa, Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 209.

2 vσrepov yévvпμa, Tivés in Thphlet. Hdrch. Schulthess in Tzschirn. Anal. 1. 4. p. 212 seq.

3 Fritzsche de nonn. post. P. ad Cor. ep. locis Diss. I. 60 sq.