Sivut kuvina

used by the evangelists in the wider sense. In respect to the event here mentioned it cannot be determined whether it is one which we find in the evangelists. Matt. 28:16 has been suggested, but there the eleven only are named, while the concluding clause in verse 17, ‘some doubted, leaves us uncertain in respect to the presence of others. Against Heumann's conjecture that the assembling at the time of the ascension is meant,' it may be said that the number, “one hundred and twenty,” is less opposed inasmuch as there may have been a greater number on the Mount of Olives than had subsequently remained together in Jerusalem, than the circumstance that Paul names two subsequent appearances, if we suppose that he follows the order of time. The additional remark that the larger part of the five hundred still lived, some only having \, fallen asleep, appears to have been designed to exhibit them as witnesses whose testimony might still be examined. An appearance made particularly to a James alone is not elsewhere mentioned in tour authorities.” That James the brother of the Lord is meant can be regarded as probable, since at that time he was in high esteem, while the brother of John was not then living. Heumann's notion that Thomas is to be understood is unworthy of notice. Equally ignorant are we in respect to the last appearance, “to all the apostles.” Some have referred to John 20: 16 when Thomas was present, he having been absent on a previous occasion. Others take the word “apostles' in a wider sense. But the conclusion of the whole

matter is that we know nothing about it.

[ocr errors]

V. 8, 9. And last of all he appeared to me also, as one born out

| of due time, for I am the least of the apostles, and am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Finally Paul names himself as among those to whom the risen

| Saviour had appeared. We inquire when and at what place On

| Luke 24: 50. Acts 1:6 seq. * Acts 1: 15.

* What Jerome narrates in his Catal. Script. Eccl., from the Apocryphal Gospel according to the Hebrews, has perhaps as little credibility as it has harmony with the order of time. [The appearance to James is mentioned by this Apocryphal writer as occurring immediately after the resurrection.—TR.]

, the road to Damascus, is the usual reply. But it has been already i shown that it is by no means certain that Paul actually saw the Saviour on that occasion." If he did not, then we must here resort to a later vision. In reality this does not alter the case, for the appearance on that journey can be well explained only as an internal one, to the mind; and what is of essential importance, such a manifestation would not prove the resurrection of Jesus. If it proved any thing, it would prove only his existence, but it would not show his previous return to life in a corporeal resurrection. Both ideas were, however, closely united in the mind of Paul. He could think of a living Christ only as one who had risen, and so of one not risen only as one dead; at least, his course of argument in the thirteenth and the following verses rests on this ground. If thus the life of the Lord was made certain to him by what had happened, so also was his resurrection. The mention of the fact that he also had seen the Lord leads him to Jexpress a very humble opinion of himself. This must have been the genuine out-flowing of his inward feelings; the more so, as there was no external inducement for such an expression. We then learn from him the ground of these feelings—grief for his early persecution of the church of Christ—grief, as it should seem, which did not leave him while he lived, its sting ever more active within him, stimulating him to the most indefatigable efforts for the cause against which he had once turned the whole force of his powerful will. This expression, that Jesus had appeared to him last of all, springs from his emotions, while he still subjoins, “as to one born out of due time.” That the noun means nothing else than a premature birth is shown so incontrovertibly by Wetstein in a multitude of

instances adduced from physicians, grammarians and other writers,

that we may fully coincide with Fritzsche” in his refutation of the exposition of Schultess," provided even that this exposition strongly commended itself on other grounds, which is by no means the case. From the earliest times downward, unspeakable pains have been taken in order to determine the sense in which Paul could say that

* See Note C, at the end of this Article. * dorsost to oxrociuart.

* De Nonnullis Post. Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolae Locis. Dissertatio I. Lips. 1823, p. 6 seq.

* First published in a Review of Kuinoel's Comment on N. T. in the N. Theol. Annalen; then in opposition to Emmerlung's Bemerkungen in Kiel and Tzschirner's Analekten 1. St. 2, and as a Defence of the same St. 4,212.

he “was born out of due time.” Here also I must agree with Fritzsche, that we are not to seek for an explanation by a special search over the wide regions of possibility, but we are to look simply and only at the apostle's own words in verse ninth. A premature birth, (for he could not have understood the word of a monstrous, misshapen birth), is feeble, imperfectly formed, rarely able to live. Thus Paul calls himself a premature birth, being as unworthy of the high name of an apostle, as a premature birth is of the name of a man; as little fitted for the duties of an apostle as that is for a natural life in the world.” The phrase is softened by prefixing “as it were,” “just as if,” and accordingly the whole verse runs thus, “Last of all he appeared to me also, who am among them, as it were, a premature birth, the poorest and most unworthy of all.’ Verse 9 contains the explanation, “For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.” “I am the least of the apostles,’ as in Eph. 3: 8, he declares that he is “least of all saints, and on this account, (for this appears to be the connection expressed by the relative ‘who’), ‘ I am, (properly speaking), unworthy" to be called an apostle.’ It is by no means necessary to give the verb ‘to be called,” another sense as is done by Heydenreich and Flatt. The ground of his unworthiness is his former persecution of the church of God.

V. 10. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace which was in me was not in vain, for I labored more abundantly than they all; yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

'Dum de vocabulo ox toowa ad P. consilium connivent.

* Paul writes to #2 reous, not #2 recora ro, which indeed he might have done, and it would have contributed to soften the harshness of the expression; but, he was neither compelled to do this, as he wished to compare himself with the other apostles, he being among them the premature one,' that is, the feeblest and weakest of them all; nor, could it have been expressed by using ro, in the sense of revi, a form which is altogether foreign to the dialect. It is foreign to it, for there are retained in 1 Thess. 4: 6, £v to arodyuart. “In anything,' there means vamósvi org.

* Corsosi. See Longinus or, op. in Wetstein.

* The word txavóg is equivalent to otos Matt. 3:11, Luke 3: 16. It is used for &&oc John 1: 17.

* xuāsiobu,

So deep was this feeling of his great unworthiness, while so profound also was his consciousness of the labors which he had performed since the grace of God had called him to the apostleship, notwithstanding his unworthiness, that he cannot permit it to pass So unnoticed. It would thus augment the glory of Him who had given him strength to labor. “Through the grace of God he is what he is,” and indeed” his grace, which he hath manifested in him,” was not in vain, for he labored more than they all; yet, it was not he but the grace of God which was with him,' that is, which accompanied him and sustained his labors.”

W. 11. Whether, therefore, I, or they, so we preach and so ye believed. t

This concludes what is preliminary to the main discussion, namely,

that the message respecting the death and resurrection of Christ was

taught unanimously by all the apostles, and was by them received as

the foundation of their faith. “So ye believed.” Thus ye put

/ confidence in it; that is, in this message ye received Christianity.

\ “Believed' is used in the same sense here, as in Rom. 13:11 and elsewhere. - *

* V. 12. Now if Christ be preached that he is raised from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead 2*

... so He now passes to the controversy itself. The apostle presupposes - two points when he inquires, how it was possible, that while Christ |was preached as if raised from the dead, there yet should be some among the Corinthians who denied the general resurrection. | First, * no one disbelieved the resurrection of Christ. That there were such persons whether Jews or Gentiles is not at all probable. It is in"deed inconceivable that any man could be then found, who would | acknowledge a crucified but not a risen Messiah as the Lord, and |the author of salvation to man. *The other presupposition is, that "a belief in the resurrection of Christ and a denial of the general resurrection involved a contradiction, for such a contradiction is indicated by the relation between the first and second members, and by the interrogative ré's “how.” But in order to a correct estimate of his confutation—for his exhibition is to be viewed in such a light 2-rather than as a direct proof of the doctrine of the resurrection—it will be indispensable that we inquire, in the first place, who denied the doctrine, and secondly what were the points, particularly, which they denied. If we could establish one of these two points with any certainty, then we might arrive at a tolerably safe conclusion in respect to the other. But since Paul has given no definite information in respect to the two points, nowhere intimating who were the deniers, or what was the nature of their skepticism, while his refutation is so constructed, that one point perhaps excepted, we can determine with certainty nothing relating to it, we are thus compelled to remain without any full or explicit inS- formation in respect to either of the topics. That we may, however, ascertain what is practicable, we will inquire what these deniers of the resurrection rejected. In what way did they refuse credence to it? Did they reject the personal, continued existence of the soul after death Such must be the ground which those assume who think that they have detected Sadducees or Epicureans in the persons in question.” They rest their opinion on verses 18 seq., 29, 33. Those who discover traces of Epicureanism refer particularly to verse 32. I must, however, oppose all conjectures of this sort. The argument against it, employed by Ziegler,” namely, that Paul, if he had been contending with the Sadducees, would have done so by drawing his proofs from the Scriptures, is certainly too weak, inasmuch as we do not know but that he might have found reasons which would apply also against the Sadducees; and even if

* The words “I am, imply more than if he had said, ‘I am an apostle.' It includes not only his apostolical office, but his fitness and his labors devoted to a fulfilment of the duties of that office. * “Indeed,' this is the force of zal in this place. * The phrase ; is is the same as #v čváeliaró w śuoi which he has made operative in respect to me.’ * * jouv šuoi-, ovvsøyodod Aoi. ~ * On the passage v. 12–19, comp. a Dissertation of Knapp in his Opusculis varii Argumenti, Fasc. I. 299.

! See Gal. 2: 14. * Heumann, Michaelis Einl. 1229, Storr Opus. Acad. II. 333., Flatt, Knapp, 310, Bertholdt Einl. 3329 seq.

* Theol. Beitr. II. 36.

« EdellinenJatka »