the scope of his reasoning were appropriate to the Sadducees, this would not remove the conjecture that there were Epicurean opponents. But what is decidedly opposed to every interpretation of the kind is the fact, that those to whom Paul refers believed in the resurrection of Christ. This is undeniable, for Paul seizes hold of this position as firmly as possible. He not only does not intimate that it was doubted, but he makes it the basis of his subsequent course of reasoning. This he could not have actually done, if there had been any place, for doubt. Besides, as has been already remarked, neither the Sadducees nor Epicureans were so spiritually inclined that they could have believed in a Christ who had not risen from the dead. We may, therefore, conclude that they [the opponents] were not of these sects. That they denied the doctrine of a future existence is not at all conceivable. Christianity offered to its adherents so little that was joyful in this present life, that without the hope which it brings with it-and this Paul as the promulger of it concealed as little in his sermons as in his letters-they would have been at most only men possessing an elevated natural morality, on which ground certainly such multitudes would not have received it as actually did receive it. Besides, in the anticipated approaching coming of Christ [then prevalent] one might have hoped for eternal life without the separating process of death. That life must have been at all events expected, else one could not have been a Christian. The reasoning of the apostle may, however, seem favorable to the opinion which I reject, so far as he actually declares that he has to do with those who denied an immortality. The ground of this opinion, nevertheless, lies only in the fact that for him as a Jew and a Pharisee, the doctrines of the continued existence of the soul and of the resurrection were so mingled, that whoever denied the one could not firmly adhere to the other, and therefore Paul, without fully knowing what was maintained or denied at Corinth, and looking at the whole subject from his own point of view, supposed that he might treat the opposers of the doctrine of the resurrection as opposers of a belief in a future life.3 In regard to the traces of an Epicurean sentiment, which some persons imagine that they find in verse 32, we must remark that the passage is a proof of the contrary. Paul there informs his readers

1 Comp. verses, 19, 29 seq.

2 Comp. Knapp. 303.

3 Neander Geschich. der Pflan. u Leit. d. Chr. Kirche, I. 213.

that a denial of the resurrection, including a rejection of the continued, personal existence of the soul, will lead to nothing as a consequence but a frivolous mode of spending this present life, which he there describes, in order that, on the presupposition that they rejected such a view of life as much as he did, they might thus be convinced of the pernicious nature of their unbelief, and might be restored to faith in the true doctrine. At any rate he must have been altogether ignorant of the existence of such an Epicurean sentiment, because, otherwise, he could not have applied this argument, which would have been wholly useless.

Accordingly we understand at least so much as this. The 'some"1 in Corinth were not the materialists who deny all personal existence of the soul beyond the grave; but they were those who contended only against the form in which the hope of Christians educated in the bosom of Judaism had, necessarily from its origin, clothed itself, namely, a belief in the resurrection of the body after its dissolution by death. Hence certainly it follows that the persons to whom Paul refers did not belong to the Judaizing party, at least, that they were not Jewish Christians. A Jew, who believed in a future life, believed also, undoubtedly,-some few Hellenizing Jews perhaps exceptedjust as our apostle did. Most probably he had his eye on some Gentile Christians. But what occasioned their doubts, whether the idea of the unfitness of earthly materials as a dwelling for the spirit in a higher stage of life, or the inconceivableness of the process by which a new body is erected from the wasted and scattered remnants of the old, or whether, like Neander, we feel compelled to assume that the persons in question were philosophical doubters,-to these questions no satisfactory answer can be given. Supposing that Paul did not himself, of his own accord, start the inquiry,' how are the dead raised,' verse 35, and put it into the mouth of an opponent, viewing it as one of the difficulties which would be elsewhere raised against the doctrine, then we may admit it as a proof, that the inconceivableness of the event was one of the reasons at least, on account of which the doctrine of the resurrection was controverted at Corinth. But here also we have no certainty.

We now proceed to examine and state the grounds on which Paul argues with those who denied his doctrine. As the meaning of the

words is surprisingly clear in the whole subsequent discussion, it will be the main business of the interpreter to investigate the arguments which the writer adduces according to their logical value, and according to this alone. He must here, if anywhere, dismiss his peculiar philosophical and doctrinal views, and endeavor so closely to stand in the position of the historical Paul, that wherever possible he may see all the principles advanced by him with the same eyes with which he did; and holding up before himself the one object of inquiry he may proceed with logical exactness, while on the same grounds also he seeks to refute the opinions which are opposite. The less this has been done heretofore, the more the peculiar doctrinal view has everywhere exerted an influence on the interpretation of this chapter, the more fully shall I be justified, in my own handling of the subject, in omitting to refer to my predecessors, with whom it is not my business to contend. My simple object is to show how Paul himself thought, and to exhibit the logical connection of his arguments.1

V. 13. Now if there be no resurrection of the dead, neither is Christ raised.

Paul having already said that a belief in the resurrection of Christ and a denial of the resurrection of believers involved a contradiction, he proceeds to the proof. 'Now some among you think that there is no resurrection, but if there be no resurrection, then,' etc. The words 'is not,' have the same propriety as in ch. 7: 9, 9: 2, 11: 6, when the non-existence of the resurrection is affirmed. The inference follows, If there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not raised.' In order to form a correct estimate of the reasoning,

The more-with regret I must add-will my Commentary displease the doctrinal exegetes. I see this beforehand, but I cannot change my course; I cannot be faithless to my principles in order to win applause. I cannot allow that the two diverse persons-the interpreter and the doctrinal writer -can be merged into each other. No good ever did come from it, nor ever will.

།

·

we must bear in mind what is contained in the premises as Paul states them-not simply that the spirits of the dead continue to live, while their bodies shall not be reänimated,' but if with the death of the body all life be absolutely annihilated." His argument may then assume this form.2 What is universally impossible cannot occur in a particular, definite instance. If there be found no place for the return of the dead to life, then Christ is not restored to life, but is dead, as all others are.' This course of argument, obvious as it may be, is attended with some difficulty. I do not here refer to the fact that Paul has identified the continued existence of the soul and the resurrection. So far as this is a difficulty, it lies in the fundamental conception of the subject, not in the reasoning. Neither do I allude to the fact, that there seems to be a difference between the calling to life of a corpse that had been dead but thirty six hours, and one that had been for a long time decayed. Paul does not here view the subject in the aspect of a purely natural possibility; and even if he had done so, he could have replied, that with the Almighty, who calleth things which be not, as though they were," there is no difference between what is easy and what is difficult. But what I here intend is this-the conclusion that there is no resurrection of the dead if Christ be not risen, can hold only so far as Paul establishes a perfect coincidence between the nature of Christ and that of man.4 So far as Christ is to be regarded as a being of a higher nature, so soon as he is considered the eternal Logos, the creating power of God, the same rule or law for him and for created man cannot hold, and while he must have a continued existence, the ceasing to exist on the part of man is conceivable. We are thus compelled to say that Paul views Christ here only in his human nature, which certainly is the same with the nature of all other men. He does not speak of a distinction between the nature of Christ and that of men, or at least it is nowhere definitely indicated. Thus it only remains, either that the apostle had unconsciously before his eyes the human nature of Christ, or else the argument does not prove what he intended.

1 Comp. v. 19, 29-32.

From Knapp 316, somewhat different from that followed by Heydenreich and Flatt.

3 Rom. 4: 17.

4 Believers are in this case to be regarded simply as men, since their union with Christ has altered nothing in their nature.

Allowing the validity of the reasoning, he might proceed at once to affirm,' but now is Christ risen, and therefore there will be a [general] resurrection.' He postpones this, however, to the twentieth verse, in order first to adduce certain consequences which would follow on the supposition that Christ was not raised.1

V. 14. If Christ be not raised, then is our préaching vain and your faith is also vain.

First consequence. If Christ be not risen, then the preaching of the apostles and the faith of Christians are vain. To understand by 'preaching' simply the declaration respecting the resurrection of Christ would give too narrow a sense. Paul expresses himself without limitation, and he must certainly be regarded as referring to the whole circle of his preaching. In a more special sense it related to Christ, the reconciler of man with God, the liberator from the guilt of sin, the author of the right to eternal life for those united to him, and the founder of the church of God, which embraces all nations without distinction. Paul avers that this preaching would be useless if Christ were not risen. In what manner it would be useless he explains in the seventeenth verse. If the work of redemption had not been accomplished, then the merits of Christ would have been of no service whatever, and the proclamation of his grace, failing in objective truth, would have been a declaration of falsehood. 'Faith' is also a general term, and to be taken in the wider sense, as the belief of Christians, a conviction in respect to the whole circle of evangelical truth and a reception of it in the inmost soul. If Christ were not risen, this faith would be vain, that is, it would rest on a false foundation, and therefore would be of no use to believers. In order to justify this inference, Paul must have considered that not only the death but the resurrection of Jesus was a condition of his qualifications as a Redeemer. This, indeed, cannot be deduced with entire certainty from any definite expressions, since Paul, who on no occasion conducts us through a philosophical theory of the terms of salvation, but everywhere announces what had actually occurred, had no occasion to express himself on the point in question. It may, however, be recognized as well from scattered hints, as from Rom. 4: 25. Phil. 3: 10.

'See Note D, at the close of the Article.