1849.]

General resurrection based on that of Christ.

31

(Hdrch.). Ỷ ovv quoi] here the human activity is united with the Divine.

V. 11. ouv] by this the thread of verse 8 is again taken up, although the είτε κηρύσσομεν presupposes the substance of the digression in vs. 9, 10; for only there is the calling and labor of the apostle spoken of. ixeiro] does not refer back to vs. 7, 8 (Mey.), but to vs. 9, 10. ovo] as vs. 3 seq., especially v. 4. The structure of the sentence is as in 13: 8. ouros] in the same manner, namely, by this, that ye have received this teaching. inorevoare] as v. 2.

Vs. 12-20. Upon the fact of the resurrection of Christ, the apostle now grounds the doctrine of the general resurrection. V. 12. dé] places the denial of the resurrection of the dead in contradiction with this truth. nos] how is it possible that, etc. Ro. 6: 2, Gal. 4:9. vix eorir] is a non-entity, a chimera, cf. 7: 9. Winer § 59. 5. b, p. 453. - V. 13. By the dé a chain of inferences is attached and continued in the following verses. The first conclusion here made does not rest upon the principle: sublato genere tollitur et species (Grotius, Mey. ; similar Knpp. p. 316. Rck.), nor upon the similarity of being in Christ and men (Thdrt. Bllr. cf. Ust. p. 364.)-to be sure a Pauline (v. 21. Heb. 2: 17), but here subordinate conception,-but, according to vs. 20 seq. upon this, that Christ by his resurrection had made a commencement in the resurrection of the dead, and that the latter is a necessary consequence of the former. So Chrys. Thphlet.; similar Calvin. Against the last mode of inference the objection may indeed be made, that from the ἀνάστ. νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔστιν it does not follow, that Jesus is not risen, but simply that [under the supposition made] his resurrection has not fulfilled its end (Mey.); but this objection can be made only when one overlooks, that, according to the apostle, the connection of the resurrection of Christ with the general resurrection is founded in the Divine arrangement of the world, and for him has the validity of an axiom. On the other hand, the first mode of inference is merely logical, and the apt objection may be made to it, that Christ, as sinless, was not subject to death, and that consequently his resurrection could not be the condition of that of sinful men. V. 14. ovx ¿ɣýɣɛgra] is to be taken in connection with the preceding, as in vs. 16, 17 ef. 7: 9. xɛvòv äga† xai [according to A D E F G 17. all.) 7. xýo. ημwv] therefore also our (entire apostolical) preaching is vain, empty, without foundation [if Christ be not risen],

'It can hardly be said that upa has in Paul anything surprising (Mey. after Hartung, Part. 1. 432. Kühn. § 757. b.), cf. Ro. 7: 3, 25. 10: 7. 2 Cor. 5: 15. Gal. 3: 29. * Cf. Eph. 5: 6. Col. 2: 8; according to Knpp. inutilis; opposed to this view, A. F. Müller, diss. exeg. de loco Paul. 1 Cor. 15: 12-19. Lips. 1839. p. 8.

2

and indeed because it is founded upon the resurrection and death of Christ. κενὴ δὲν καὶ ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν] vain also your faith; this is founded namely upon the κήρυγμα.

V. 15. Lehm. Tschdf. Mey. connect this verse with the preceding by a comma, plainly contrary to the true relation of the chain of clauses and inferences; for evgiox.eo has its ground in that which follows, whilst the clauses xevòv-vuor have their ground in that which precedes. εvgιozóμɛda] we are found, prove ourselves. av doμágrvqes dεov] as false witnesses concerning God (Rck. Mey.) not : of God, which God has (Bllr.). False witnesses according to what follows, because they would have declared that which was false; according to Knpp. quia auctoritatem Dei ementiuntur, and Müll. 1. c. distinguishes strictly between evdets μágr., qui falsum testimonum dicunt, and wevdoμágr., qui mentiuntur se esse testes, cf. yevdoQoqraι and others; on the contrary, however, wevdodidáoxados, ψευδοκατήγορος. -xarà Deov] most interpret: against God (Matt. 26: 59), because against the truth; according to Meyer, "every consciously false declaration, that God has done anything, is against God." It is better to interpret it, with Raphel., according to Xenoph. Cyrop. 1. 6. Plutarch. praedag. c. 4. Wlf.: of God. εἴπερ ἄρα] if truly peradventure (Mey.); but the two hardly go together in German [or in English-TR.]; and si apa, si forte, is different from ɛînɛq άoa, if truly therefore, siquidem, ut vos putatis (Müll.), cf. the examples, where it is used elliptically, in Viger. ed. Herm. p. 514. Passow p.640. a.

p.

V. 16. Vindication of the ov ovx y. x. 7. 2. by an almost literal repetition of v. 13. — V. 17. Repetition of the inference for the Christian faith, drawn in v. 14, from the preceding proposition, with the modification that this faith is represented as fruitless (uaraía, vain, fruitless, cf. 3: 20), and indeed in reference to redemption from sin. rvμcv] ye are still in your sins, in the condition of the misery of sin; similar Ro. 3: 9 vq' àμagríav eivai. The inference rests upon the inseparability of the resurrection of Christ and his atoning death, and, in general, upon the inseparability of all the parts in the work of salvation.

V. 18. A new (xaí also) inference from the si Xotoròs oùx iy., and indeed such an one, as must give pain to many affectionate hearts in Corinth (11:30). oi xoyun évres év Xquor] those who have fallen κοιμηθέντες ἐν Χριστῷ] asleep (v. 6, and 11: 30) in Christ (in communion with him, in faith in him, not meaning: for the sake of Christ, i. e. as martyrs, Chrys.

1 dé is to be omitted, according to ABD FG 17. all. Vulg. all. Patr. with Lachmann, Tischendorf, Rck. Mey.

1849.1

Conclusion of the Argument.

383

Thdrt. Thphlet. Oec. Grt.), the departed Christians, at the same time not including the pious, who lived before Christ (Calov. Kпpp.). αлoLovro] are lost, i. e. Christians, if there be no resurrection, are subjected to destruction in Gehenna.

V. 19. A sad application of this inference to the living. The absence of a Part. copul. may be explained by the emotion, cf. Ro. 7: 24, 25. The correct position of the words, according to A B D * E F G 17. It. Patr. Lehm. Techdf. is : εἰ ἐν τῇ ζωῇ ταύτῃ ἐν Χριστῷ ἐλπικότες ἐσμὲν μόνον]. Whether μόνον be connected with ἐν τῇ ζωῇ τ. (the common opinion, and for this transposition Ro. 5: 6 may be adduced) or with the whole clause (Mey. Müll.) is indifferent as regards the sense in the main point, if the emphasis be laid upon év 7. Zon 7.: "If we are only such, as have hope in Christ in this life" (Mey.). According to Mey. Müll. zavry has not the emphasis because it is placed after; but this reason is of no force, cf. Eph. 1: 21; nor is z. ζωή to be placed in opposition to κοιμηθέντες (Mey.); ἐν τ. ζ. τ. is plainly contrasted with the destiny of the departed, indefinitely conceived, after death, if there be no resurrection. Yet I should rather divide the emphasis between ἐν τ. ζ. τ. and ἠλπ. ἐσμέν, and suppose a contrast between hope in this life and the fulfilment after death (cf. Ro. 8:24). Morus and Rck. connect pórov with iv Xquare; on the contrary, Mey. ¿λniše v Xo. to place one's hope in Christ, cf. Eph. 1: 12; the Perf. as in Jno. 5: 45. 2 Cor. 1: 10, and the Partic. with louév, in order to render more prominent the idea of hope. hεεórego 7. arto.] more miserable than all men.

V. 20. Conclusion of the argument, since the fact of the resurrection of Jesus is taken as proved (vvvì dé, but now, cf. vs. 4 seq.) and at the same time the axiom of belief connected with it (on which the argument has been hitherto conducted): ἀπαρχὴ τῶν κεκοιμημένων] as first fruits of those who have fallen asleep (is he awaked from the dead), so that he has made the commencement in the resurrection of the dead. cf. Col. 1:18: ἀρχὴ πρωτότοκος ἐκ νεκρῶν.

Vs. 21-28. Explanation of this axiom by showing its connection with other truths. 1) Vs. 21-24. Christ, as contrast to Adam, is the author and effector of the resurrection. Vs. 21, 22. The axiom of faith, that the resurrection of the dead has its ground in the resurrection of Christ, is connected with what is laid down in Ro. 5: 12 seq.," that Christ, as contrast to Adam, is the second head of the human race, or the head of the human race restored, as Adam was the head of the fallen race of men. Whilst in Romans this parallelism is pointed out in the two points of sin and death on the one side, and righteousness and life on the other, here only one point is exhibited. (cf. remarks

after v.50.) We have two corresponding propositions: in the one, v. 21, the parallelism is represented in general terms, under the conception man; in the second, v. 22, individually, in Adam and Christ; in the first, in the relation of antecedent and conclusion (inedý, as once); in the second, in the relation of similarity. di drogorov ó Dávaros] ἀνθρώπου sc. ἐστὶ, cf. Ro. 5: 12. ἐν τῷ ̓Αδάμ, ἐν τ. Χρ.) in connection with Adam, with Christ, in so far as the one and the other stands at the head. On account of this parallelism, and what follows, we must not give up the universality of the narres, maintained by the older writ ers (Bez. Aretius, Mor. Rsm. Ust. Olsh. Mey.), and limit it to Christians (as Calov. Blondel, Wlf. Msh. Bgl. Lutheran-orthodox opinion, Est. Bllr. Rck.). But, since there is an avάoranis Sons and an ἀνάστ. κρίσεως (Jno. 5: 29), taking ζωοποιηθ. the same as ἐγερθή Gorra, and finding here both resurrections, shall we with the reformed churches, found also the resurrection of the unjust to judgment upon the merits of Christ, or say, with Olsh., that the wicked also, as men, are in Christ (but with this view the meaning of the &v Xo. would be changed); or shall we, with Grotius, contrary to the parallelism, take έv by means of; or, with Mey., understand it of the ground or reason: "in so far namely as Christ as Messiah must also be the general awakener of the dead, and would not be the former if he were not the latter, Acts 24: 15. Jno. 5: 28 ?" But with this latter view, the question would only be transferred back to a positive conception. Probably woлon. is to be taken in its appropriate signification, and understood simply of the resurrection to life; the universality of it, however, to be conceived of in the sense of the ἀποκατάστασις πάντ 7wv indicated in what follows. (cf. Weizel in Stud. u. Kr. 1836. 978.

V. 23. ἕκαστος] plainly refers to πάντες. — ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ τάγματι] in his own order. váyua properly what is placed in order, a body of troops drawn up in military order; so Mey.: in his own division; and such an one would oi rov Xo. form. But as a second váyua is not mentioned, and also Christ himself commences the series, the succession (rážis) seems to be denoted by the word, as this idea lies in the words απαρχή, ἔπειτα, εἶτα. For this use of the word, proof is not found in Clem. Rom. 1. Ep. ad Cor. c. 37. b. Rck., rather in c. 41; but as ražis also like zάyua designates a division of an army, so also the latter may have the former signification of zážis [viz. succession]. oi zov Xquarov] those belonging to Christ, cf. 1 Thess. 4: 16. Therefore the "first resurrection," Rev. 20: 5. Bibl. Dogm. [of De Wette] § 203.

V. 24. eira rò reλ.] sc. forai. Then will the end be. Not: of the

1849.]

End of "the Last Things."

35

resurrection; for although with this view the development of the thought would be in strict progression, yet the expression zos, which we are scarcely led by the απαρχή to refer to ανάστασις, is against it ; not: of the world, or the present order of the world; 2 for although the objection, that "according to the uniform doctrine of the New Testament, with the second coming of Christ commences the finis hujus saeculi" (Mey.), is removed by Rev. 20: 7, 8 (where the Millennium is interposed); and if accordingly, with Olsh., we suppose the apostle to place this temporal kingdom of Christ between the first resurrection and the end, and the general resurrection at the same time with the end, á complete harmony arises between him and the Apocalypse, as also the expression rékos can be justified by the clauses which follow in the context: ὅταν καταργήσῃ κ. τ. λ. V. 24, ἔσχατος ἐχθρὸς κ. τ. λ. V. 26 ; still the apostle, by the orar naqad. x. z. 2. (which clearly is to explain to reos), has pointed out the way to another explanation, I mean not precisely this: the end of the kingdom of Christ (Grt. Bllr.), but of the events included in the “last things," the eschatological events (Ust. p. 373: the consummation). But the second, general resurrection is always to be connected with rò vélos, and also between this and the first, a longer or shorter space of time is to be conceived of, which Rck. and Kl. wrongly deny. In this space of time now is to be placed the temporal kingdom of Christ, and at the same time with that, according to Weizel, as cited above, a process of sanctification or redemption, which extends also to the heathen and wicked persons, (analogous to the process of redemption, which took place from the resurrection of Christ to his reappearance in the church) and the subjugation of all the enemies of Christ, together with the destruction of death, which takes place last (vs. 25, 26), and which is followed by the general resurrection. öruv nagad3 r. Bao. x. r. 2.] when he gives up the kingdom to God the Father (Ro. 15: 6). örar with the Pres. Conj. expresses elsewhere (Jno. 8: 44. Win. § 43. 5) a recurring action, but also a future action (Matthiae Greek Gr. § 521. p. 1195). The Aor. is not appropriate, because this surrender is made dependent upon the following όταν καταργήσῃ. ή βασιλ. the kingdom of Christ can scarcely be regarded the same as that which is called the kingdom of Grace, i. e.

1 As Thdrt. Oec. Cajet. Bgl. Jehne interpr. c.15. ep. 1. ad Cor. in Velth. et Kuin. Commentt. Vol. II. Hdrch. (not Ust.) Mey.

2 Chrys. Bez. Bld. Wlf. Msh. Olsh. Kling St. u. Kr. 1839. 504.

More correctly Rck. Mey. after AD E all. Verss. Patr. #apadid (Lehm.Tschdf. after B F G napadidoï, which Opt. cannot be grammatically justified, ef. Kühn. II. 810. remark), because the following Aor. as well refutes the common reading as explains its origin.