Page images
PDF
EPUB

F G 28. all. Vulg. all. Patrr., and which is adopted by Lehm. Tschdf. and Mey., makes the clause a warning. But 1) this has here no appropriate place, since v. 50 (to be sure, not according to Mey., see below) concludes the argument, consequently also v. 49 must accord with the form of this argument; 2) the clause would then take its point of view in the present time, whilst ¿qoqέoauɛv x. 7. 2. transfers the entire life to the past. Meyer gives an interpretation not contained in the previous train of thought: "as we were similar to Adam by sin (which however has not been spoken of hitherto, see below) before receiving Christ." And thus, after all, the genuine reading in the common text seems to remain, according to B 17. all. Syr. Arr. Aeth. Arm. Orig. ed. Thdrt. How the other reading originated, is not indeed so easy to explain, as it has not at all the character of correction or facilitation.

V. 50. Conclusion of the preceding, by the express (7оvτo de qηu, cf. 7: 29) negative assertion, that (whatever one may think positively concerning the resurrection-body) flesh and blood (Thdrt. : zηv Ovyzýv φύσιν καλεῖ) and that which is perishable ή φθορά instead of τὸ φθαρ Tóv) cannot (namely, not immediately, without change, v. 53) be partakers of the kingdom of God and of incorruption. According to Ust. p. 364. Bllr. and Olsh., Paul here makes an admission to his spiritualizing opponents: "but that I allow" (?). Meyer joins v. 50, as introduction or transition, to v. 51seq. But besides that the principle here laid down is far too general, to form a transition to the particular communication, which follows in verse 51, it is also more appropriate, according to the manner in which, in Ro. 11: 25, a similar votýlov is announced, to suppose something new to commence with verse 51. Not until the exhibition of the result, in v. 50, does it come to the mind of Paul to explain himself concerning those still living at the second coming of Christ. xλngovouɛi] does not stand for the future, which is the reading in C D F G Vulg. al., but denotes the nature of the case, cf. v. 35. The Christological expression inherit (6: 9, 10), is transferred, also, by means of the parallelism, to aq ago. (state of imperishableness) as in Matt. 19: 29 to Con aióóv. In the contrast carried out, in vs. 21, 22, 45 seq., between Adam, mortal and communicating immortality, and Christ, risen and communicating the resurrection, the element of sin, by which death has come into the world, is passed over in silence and not considered until verse 56.

Vs. 51-53. Communication concerning the destiny of those, who will be still living at the second coming of Christ. Vs. 51, 52. uvoτngiov] ef. Ro. 11: 25. πάντες μὲν οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεα] This common reading is found in B (without μév) D** E all.

1849.]

Destiny of those living at Christ's Coming.

45

codd. gr. ap. Hier. all., in Verss. Chrys. Thdrt. all., and is rightly preferred to the various others, which are to be regarded as introduced on dogmatic grounds. The more precise meaning would be: we shall all indeed not die (i. e. we shall be living till the second coming of Christ) but shall all be changed, so that the subject of both verbs would be Paul, and all those, who should live until the second coming, and aλλay., as v. 52, would refer only to those then living (Mey.). But it would have been an absurd prediction, if he had promised, that in the time before the second coming, no one of the Christians would die, cf. 11: 30. 6: 14. Moreover, in a grammatical point of view, it is opposed to this explanation, that quis is not used instead of návres, as in v. 52. 1 Thess. 4: 15, 17. Hence it may be regarded as certain, that návres denotes all Christians, and ahharno. is to be referred, not, as in v. 52, to the living, but also at the same time to the dead, and in reference to the latter, is to be taken figuratively in the sense of ¿ɣεod. äpduroi, v. 52. Meaning: we shall not all die, but all (some by the process of resurrection, others by another) be changed. In order not to be obliged, with Chrys, and most interpreters, to assume a transposition of the negation, it is best, with Bllr., to refer even the Erst πάντες to αλλαγ. and regard the μὲν οὐ κοιμηθ. only as inserted : we shall all-not die indeed—but all be changed. After an opinion in Oec., Estius explains où xon9., pressing the meaning of the word, thus, that all die indeed, but do not sleep in death, i. e. would pass quickly from death to life. ἐν ἀτόμῳ κ. τ. λ.] belongs to αλλαγ.: in a twinkling (arouor, individuum, small point of time), in a moment. έv r. ¿ox. oάhn.] at (Win. p. 461) the last trumpet (at the last sound of the trumpet), not that of the last day (Pelag. Est. Fl. Hdrch. Bllr. Rck. Mey.), but at the last of the signals which will then be given. But the apostle does not mean thereby the last trumpet, Rev. 11: 15 (rivés, Thphlet. Wlf. Olsh. cf. Fl.), which does not by any means'constitute the last decisive moment; and also not the last of the seven sounds of the trumpet, during which the resurrection shall take place by degrees, according to R. Akiba in his Othioth. f. 17. 3. in Eisenm. II. 929. Wtst. (the iv áróμg is, however, against this); but he means the last of the signals, during which, according to some primitive (not so much Matt. 24: 31 as his own, resting upon an azoxáhvyis made to him) apocalyptical representation, the events included in the last things' were to take place. (In 1 Thess. 4: 16, several sounds of the trumpet are not indeed expressly mentioned, but ev σáhniɣyı 9807 re

1 Which, however, could find an explanation and apology in this, that Paul places the emphasis on πάντες, as in the case in Num. 23: 13: πάντας μὲν οὐ μὴ ίδης.

fers either merely to the second coming, as the first act, and a second and several signals are presupposed, or it is to be taken collectively). The conception of the signals of the trumpet rests ultimately upon the use of the holy trumpets in the festivals of Divine worship among the Jews, and is the figure of the entrance of solemn catastrophies, produced from above. The last signal of all cannot be meant, if here only the first resurrection be spoken of, which, according to vs. 23, 24, is not to be doubted. oaλnioa-allay.] is a confirmatory clause, σαλπίσει αλλαγ.] which is not, with Grb. and Scho., to be inserted in brackets, since the construction is not thereby interrupted; but rather, on the contrary, the following second confirmatory clause, v. 53, refers to allay. oaλnica] Impers. cf. Win. § 39. 1. xai] and then, in consequence of that. queis dλhay.] Calov. Est. Strr. (Opusc. 1. 76) Fl. and others, after Chrys. Thdrt. Thphlet. and Oec., are of opinion, that Paul does not speak of himself, but of those who should then be living. V. 53. dai] according to the principle, v. 50. ¿rdíoαoda] put on, image of close union, Lu. 24: 49. Ro. 13: 14. Eph. 4: 24. Col. 3: 10, especially also of the resurrection-body, 2 Cor. 5: 3.

Vs. 54-57. The apostle dwells in triumphant hope upon this conception; it is, as it were, a lyrical conclusion to the whole section, like

Ro. 8: 31 seq. V. 54. yɛvýsɛra] will take place, "be fulfilled," κατεπόθη κ. τ. λ.] Is. 25: 8, not after the LXX. (κατέπιεν ὁ θάνατος iozvoas), but after the original text, and indeed with this deviation, that, Jehovah destroys, is translated passively, and for ever, by eis vixos (as LXX. 2 Sam. 2: 26 and elsewhere) to victory (so that victory is the result). Schemoth R. XXX. f. 131. 4. XV. f. 101. 3: in – diebus ejus (Messiae) Deus S. B. deglutiet mortem s. d. Es. XXV, 8 (Wtst.).

Vs. 55, 56. Thdrt. Thphlet. and Oec. seem to take these words of Hos. 13: 14, not as a quotation, but as borrowed, and as an expression of the triumphant feeling of the apostle, as also Meyer adopts this view. But as in v. 56 a Midrasch (commentary) follows, and as the apostle elsewhere (Ro. 11: 8) unites various passages, it seems better to

; אֱהִי דְבָרֶיךָ מָוֶת אֲהִי קָטָבְךָ שְׁאֹל : regard them as a quotation. Hosea says

LXX. : nov (= cf. v. 10; others, I will be) dízη σov (instead of thy plagues), dávate, noũ tò xévroov oov (instead of thy diseases), dn. BC 17. all. Verss. Patr. Lachm. Tschdf. and Rck. have here vixos first and xévroov last, contrary to the order of words in the commoh text, but it is plainly through accommodation to the LXX. Again, B D E F G. 39. all. Verss. Patr. Lehm. Tschdf. Rck. have dávate instead of adŋ, which, as a deviation from the LXX, is to be regarded as original (Mey.). By xévroov Paul conceives of the sting

1849.]

Final Admonition.

47

of a scorpion (Thphlet. Grt. Mey.), i. e. a destructive weapon, not a goad (Schltz. Bllr.); it is not parallel with duvaus "as that which calls forth the expression of power: sin wakes the slumbering power of death, and again the law that of sin" (Olsh.), for xévrq. 7. Dav. is the sting with which death kills, not by which its power is awakened. According to the familiar expression that death is the wages of sin (Ro. 6: 23), the latter is here represented as the destructive weapon, which death employs; and, that the strength of sin lies in the law, which awakens and strengthens it, is clear from Ro. 7: 7 seq.- V. 57. cf. Ro. 7: 25. 7 didóvri] the Present denoting the certain Future. τὸ νίκος] as v. 54.

V. 58. Final warning, in the form of an inference (oore, cf. 11:33. 14:39), not from rą didóvri x. v. 2. (Mey.) but from the whole previous instruction. ¿doaio-άuer.] firm, immovable, namely in faith, cf. Col.1: 23, and indeed here in reference to the doubts which have been considered. Bez. and Mey.: the readers are conceived of as ethical athletes; but there is no mention of combat. But as faith must be active, and moral action suffers by doubts, it is added: пQ1σσ. x. 7. 2.] distinguishing yourselves in the work of the Lord. This is not the work which Christ has performed, the Christian plan of salvation, cf. 16: 10. Phil. 2: 30 (Mey.), or the spread of Christianity (Olsh.), but practical Christianity, cf. Jno. 6: 28, 29. τὰ ἔργα, τὸ ἔργον τ. θεοῦ. The work belonging to Christ or that commanded by him (cf. Matth. 6: 33) is indeed for the apostle, the furtherance of the plan of salvation and the spread of the gospel (16: 10), but for all Christians the work of love (xónos). ɛidózes] introduces the motive, not for following the whole warning (Mey.), but for the regioover z. 7. 2, and this aideva is the conviction of the resurrection, fortified again by the defence of the apostle, in which there lies a reward (v. 32), of which xerós, without fruit, forms the contrast. ev xvoi] belongs, to be sure, not to ó xón. vu. (Thphlet. 1 Oec. 1. Hdrch.), but also not to ouxxɛvós alone (Thphlet. 2. Oec. 2. Mey.), but to the whole clause, cf. 9, 1.—Also in the character of this warning lies an argument against the reading v. 49, and the turn of warning thereby introduced.

ARTICLE III.

OF THE NATURAL PROOFS OF THE IMMORTALITY OF THE

SOUL.

By George I. Chace, Prof. of Chemistry and Geology, Brown University.

HAVING in the last number of this Review, offered some thoughts upon the constitution of spiritual beings, as exemplified in the inhabitants of our globe, in accordance with a purpose there intimated, we proceed now to consider the question, in which above all others, such beings are interested; viz. that of their continued existence, after the destruction of the corporeal frames with which, in the present state, they are so intimately connected. In the prosecution of this inquiry, our attention will be directed more especially to the spiritual nature or soul of man, as it is that, whose destinies more immediately concern us. However gratifying to our curiosity it might be, to know what becomes of the more humble endowment of spirit, allotted to each one of the lower animals, on the dissolution of their bodies, such knowledge, it is probable, would have no direct bearing upon human interests, and consequently be of comparatively little value.

"If a man die, shall he live again?" has been the great question and too often the despairing question, of the innumerable multitudes of our race, from the time when the first human being looked abroad over the earth, down to the present hour. Priests have taught the doctrine of a future life; poets have sung of it, and philosophers have labored to demonstrate it; but still as each new generation has arisen upon that which preceded it, the question has been again and again repeated, with the same eager interest, and the same uncertain and unsatisfying results. The earliest regular treatise, which has come down to us, on this subject, is the Phaedo of Plato. It was written about four hundred years previous to the commencement of the Christian era. It is in the form of a dialogue, and although composed by Plato, is supposed to embody the arguments of Socrates, his master, whom he makes the principal of the interlocutors. It is a highly elaborate production, uniting to a clearness and vigor of thought rarely equalled, the most finished graces of diction. Cicero, who was a profound admirer of Plato, makes one of the characters, in his Tusculan Questions (I. 11, 24), referring to this work, say: "evolve diligenter ejus eum librum, qui est de animo; amplius quod desideres, nihil erit."

« PreviousContinue »