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 (inuidń, as once); in the second, in the relation of similarity. di argoónov ó dávaros] 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 návrɛs, 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 avάoraois Swns and an ἀνάστ. κρίσεως (Jno. 5: 29), taking ζωοποιηθ. the same as ἐγερθή Govrou, 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 έv Xo. would be changed); — or shall we, with Grotius, contrary to the parallelism, take ev 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 woлoin. 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 πάν Tov 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. rayua 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 túyua is not mentioned, and also Christ himself commences the series, the succession (vážis) 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 rá is also like rayua designates a division of an army, so also the latter may have the former signification of ras (viz. succession]. oi rov 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. elra rò reλ.] sc. oral. 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 vélos, which we are scarcely led by the απαρχή to refer to ἀνάστασις, 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, a complete harmony arises between him and the Apocalypse, as also the expression téλos can be justified by the clauses which follow in the cortext: ὅταν καταργήσῃ κ. τ. λ. V. 24, ἔσχατος ἐχθρὸς κ. τ. λ. V. 26 ; still the apostle, by the ozar nagad. x. z. 2. (which clearly is to explain zò ros), 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 zo zelos, 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 reäppearance 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. ὅταν παραδῷ τ. βασ. κ. τ. λ.] when he gives up the kingdom to God the Father (Ro. 15: 6). orav 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 ὅταν καταργήσῃ ἡ βασιλ. the kingdom of Christ can scarcely be regarded the same as that which is called the kingdom of Grace, i. e.

3

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.

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

the church (Bld. Calov. Est. Wlf. Msh. Rsm. Hdrch. Rck.), since this is before the final advent of Christ (the nagovoíu), but a kingdom (v. 25) between this and the consummation, similar to the Millennium of the Apocalypse, which indeed is far more perfect, spiritualized, and triumphant than the present earthly one (the church), but still belongs to a finite state, and is subjected to struggle. So Ust. p. 367. Note, Olsh.; whilst Weizel rejects the idea of a Millennium, but assumes, however, an intermediate period. All other expositors hesitate to take up the thought of the apostle. Thphlet.: rovrέori xarogDoĩ, τελειοῖ – – τότε γὰρ τελείως ὁ Χρ. ἡμῶν βασιλεύσει; similar Thdrt. Ambros. Cajet. Storr Opusc. 1. 277. Flatt, so that a sense comes out entirely opposite to the Pauline. Est. : tradet regnum Deo et patri, i. e. cum subjectione et gratiarum actione gloriosum illud regnum suum Deo patri suo offeret, profitens universam regni sui gloriam illi autori se acceptam referre. Hilar. Lib. XI. de trin., Aug. l. I. de trin. c. 8. Hugo Victor: cum perduxerit electos suos ad contemplationem Dei; similar Hesshus. in Calov.; Hdrch.: quando omnes regni messiani cives Deo exhibebit atque offeret vivos, dominio mortis ereptos, redintegratos, restitutos et immortales. - Parallel are Pirke Elies. 11. in Wtst. Schttg.: Nonus rex est Messias, qui reget ab extremitate una mundi ad alteram. Decemus Deus S. B. Tunc redibit regnum ad auctorem suum S. D. örav-dúraμur] when he shall have destroyed all dominion and all might and power. All hostile powers are meant, not merely the demons (Chrys. Thdrt. Hdrch. Bllr. Ust. p. 354), nor merely the earthly powers. Against the context, on account of the Tous iooous in v. 25, is the explanation of Calvin (cf. Cajet.): potestates legitimas a Deo ordinatas, and of Olsh.: all dominion, good as well as evil, and also even that of the Son. (cf. Mey.)

2) Vs. 25-28. The Apostle in the course of his remarks is led to the thought, not known probably to all, of the surrender of the kingdom of Christ to God; of this now, in a digression, he gives an expla

nation.

V. 25. dei-Basilever] for he must (by virtue of the Divine order or arrangement of the world) reign. This necessarily presupposes a longer duration of the dominion, and indeed a different one from that in the church, during the continuance of which the destruction of the terrestrial powers indeed, but not of the super-terrestrial, takes place. ❝xois où x. 7. 2.) Words adopted from Ps. 110: 1. The subject is not ɛós (Bez. Grt. Est. Rsm. Fl. Hdrch. Bllr.), to which neither the connection (which was probably not taken into consideration by the apostle) of the passage in the Psalm, nor v. 27 compels us; but the subject is Christ on account of the connection with v. 25

1849.]

Death, the Last Enemy, destroyed.

37

(Chrys. Rck. Mey.), although avrov, not avrov, is to be written. (Mey., cf. Win. p. 175-6.

V. 26. As the last enemy death is destroyed, not Satan (Ust. p. 373); still death is conceived as a personal, diabolical power, Rev. 20: 14.— V. 27. Proof, that Christ will destroy all hostile powers, also death, from Ps. 8: 6, which passage according to the grammatico-historical sense, is to be understood of the dominion of man over the earth, but by an ideal explanation is applied by Paul to the Messiah: for he (God, according to the connection of the Psalm) hath put all things under his feet, namely, by his decree, which the Messiah in reality (vs. 24—26) fulfils. The apostle at the same time also, by an analysis of the passage in the Psalm, confirms the above conception of the surrender of the kingdom of Christ to God, and defines it more accurately as a subjection of the Son to the Father. őzav dè eïnŋ] sc. ý roagń (6: 16); according to Mey. ó ós, but contrary to the connection here and in the Psalm. orar quandoquidem, Jno. 9:5 (Bllr.); better: quum dicet (Bez. Mey.), but this is uncommon, since after özuv the Aor. has the signification of the Fut. exact, cf. Remarks on Heb. 1: 6. dÿλov öri] sc. návra inor., cf. Matthiae, § 624, p.

1494.

V. 28. rózɛ-vzor.] then will also the Son subject himself, etc., in a different sense from that in which everything (hostile) will be subjected to him, in this sense namely, that he will no longer reign in God's stead, or God through him mediately, but God will rule without mediation. The explanation, that the subjection is only a hyperbolical expression for the complete harmony of Christ with the Father (Chrys. Thphlet. Oec.); the limitation to the human nature (Thdrt. Aug. Jerom. in Calov., Bld. Est. and others) together with the declarative explanation: "it will be very clear, that Christ also in respect to his dominion, considered according to his humanity, is dependent upon God the Father" (Fl.), together with the addition: "Christ will then according to his divine nature rule with the Father” (Calv.); and furthermore to explain it by the Corpus. Christi mysticum, i. e. of the church (Thdrt.),—these all are unmeaning evasions. The limitation to the mediatorial office of Christ (Bld.) is better. iva y z. z. 2.] in order that (not: so that, Hdrch.) God may be all (as we say be everything, in authority, etc.) in all (Masc.), cf. Col. 3: 11; differently Eph. 1: 23, and also here ir nuor can be taken as neuter for in all modes (of existence).

Vs. 29-34. Further arguments for the resurrection. V. 29. First argument. enɛ] for, does not introduce a reason for v. 28 (Mey.), but an argument for the resurrection (Oec.). The preceding stands VOL. VI. No. 21.

4

indeed only in distant connection with it; but since vs. 25-28 are to be considered as a digression (Olsh.), it is not at all unnatural thus to refer back. i nousovor] the Fut. refers to the supposition: if there be (were) no resurrection; what will (would) then ... do; not: quid eos facere apparebit (Bllr.). But in this question lies the foolishness of this doing. Cf. Acts 14, 15 : τί ταῦτα ποιεῖτε; 21, 13: τί ποιeite xhaíorres; Grt. Fl. Mey.: what will they effect? oi Bazzilóμevoi vaèg zov vexgor] who are baptized for (instead of) the dead. This only possible sense of the words leads to the explanation, that the apostle supposes the practice afterwards in use among the Cerinthians (Epiph. Haer. XXVIII, 7) and Marcionites (Tert. de Resurr. 48, adv. Marc. V, 10. Chrys. ad h. 1.), according to which Christians were baptized for those who had died unbaptized (the article denotes those who thus died), in order thereby to make them partakers of the resurrection and eternal life. It is an argumentum ad hominem, an appeal to the prevailing belief; in which view there is only this difficulty, that the apostle seems to have sanctioned this senseless practice (Mey. and others do not indeed allow this), or at least does not blame it. Luther and others in Calov. translate: over the dead, i. e. over their graves; but ineo does not appear in the New Testament in the signification of place; the custom is not proved, and the argument taken from thence would be weak. Chrys. Thphlet. Oec. Corn. a Lap. Er. Schmid and others, entirely contrary to the use of language, translate: in faith in the resurrection of the dead. Epiph. Calv. Est. Flac. and others explain it of the baptism of the catechumens on the death bed, likewise contrary to the sense of the words. Cleric. ad Hamm., Deyling. Observ. S. II. 44, Döderlein Institutt. II. 409, and Olsh. translate in the place of the dead, i. e. who are baptized, although their predecessors are dead,-who take the place of the dead. Pelag. Olear. Paul. Memor. II. 153 seq. Schr. interpret: with regard to the departed Christ (Plur. of the Category); Strr. Opusc. 1. 281. Fl. interpret: on account of Christ and those who have died in him; Fl. proposes also to take Banzi. in the metaphorical sense of the baptism of blood: to endure sufferings in respect to the departed Christ and his departed worshippers. Morus interprets: why do they incur misery on account of the dead, i. e. on account of those who have been dead a longer or shorter time? (Similar Lghtf.) Many other explanations still, see in Calov. Wlf. Hdrch. ei-¿reípovrat is joined to the preceding by Luther, Grb. Scho. better (cf. Ro. 3: 6, 7) by Bez. Bgl. Lehm.

1 Ambros. Anselm. Scalig. Grt. Calixt. and others of the older writers in Calov. Bllr. Rck. Mey.