1Cor 15:12-34 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 12. Now if Christ , etc. Paul, having ( ) stated the direct evidence for the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, proceeds here to demonstrate that the dead would rise, by showing how it followed from the fact that the Lord Jesus had risen, and by showing what consequences would follow from denying it. The whole argument is based on the fact that the Lord Jesus had risen. If that was admitted, he shows that it must follow that his people would also rise. Be preached . The word preached here seems to include the idea of so preaching as to be believed; or so as to demonstrate that he did rise. If this was the doctrine on which the church was based, that the Lord Jesus rose from the dead, how could the resurrection of the dead be denied? How say . How can any say; how can it be maintained? Some among you . See the introduction to the chapter. Who these were is unknown. They may have been some of the philosophic Greeks, who spurned the doctrine of the resurrection, ( ;) or they may have been some followers of Sadducean teachers; or it may be that the Gnostic philosophy had corrupted them. It is most probable, I think, that the denial of the resurrection was the result of reasoning after the manner of the Greeks, and the effect of the introduction of philosophy into the church. This has been the fruitful source of most of the errors which have been introduced into the church. That there is no resurrection of the dead ? That the dead cannot rise. How can it be held that there can be no resurrection, while yet it is admitted that Christ rose? The argument here is twofold. (1.) That Christ rose was one instance of a fact which demonstrated that there had been a resurrection, and of course that it was possible. (2.) That such was the connexion between Christ and his people that the admission of this fact involved also the doctrine that all his people would also rise. This argument Paul states at length in the following verses. It was probably held by them that the resurrection was impossible . To all this, Paul answers in accordance with the principles of inductive philosophy as now understood, by demonstrating a fact , and showing that such an event had occurred, and that consequently all the difficulties were met. Facts are unanswerable demonstrations; and when a fact is established, all the obstacles and difficulties in the way must be admitted to be overcome. So philosophers now reason; and Paul, in accordance with these just principles, laboured simply to establish the fact that one had been raised, and thus met at once all the objections which could be urged against the doctrine. It would have been most in accordance with the philosophy of the Greeks to have gone into a metaphysical discussion to show that it was not impossible or absurd, and this might have been done. It was most in accordance with the principles of true philosophy, however, to establish the fact at once, and to argue from that, and thus to meet all the difficulties at once. The doctrine of the resurrection, therefore, does not rest on a metaphysical subtilty; it does not depend on human reasoning; it does not depend on analogy; it rests just as the sciences of astronomy, chemistry, anatomy, botany, and natural philosophy do, on well ascertained facts ; and it is now a well understood principle of all true science, that no difficulty, no obstacle, no metaphysical subtilty, no embarrassment about being able to see how it is, is to be allowed to destroy the conviction in the mind which the facts are fitted to produce. (b) "how say"

1 Corinthians 15:12-34

Verse 12. Now if Christ, etc. Paul, having (1Cor 15:1-11) stated the direct evidence for the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, proceeds here to demonstrate that the dead would rise, by showing how it followed from the fact that the Lord Jesus had risen, and by showing what consequences would follow from denying it. The whole argument is based on the fact that the Lord Jesus had risen. If that was admitted, he shows that it must follow that his people would also rise.

Be preached. The word preached here seems to include the idea of so preaching as to be believed; or so as to demonstrate that he did rise. If this was the doctrine on which the church was based, that the Lord Jesus rose from the dead, how could the resurrection of the dead be denied?

How say. How can any say; how can it be maintained?

Some among you. See the introduction to the chapter. Who these were is unknown. They may have been some of the philosophic Greeks, who spurned the doctrine of the resurrection, (Acts 17:32;) or they may have been some followers of Sadducean teachers; or it may be that the Gnostic philosophy had corrupted them. It is most probable, I think, that the denial of the resurrection was the result of reasoning after the manner of the Greeks, and the effect of the introduction of philosophy into the church. This has been the fruitful source of most of the errors which have been introduced into the church.

That there is no resurrection of the dead? That the dead cannot rise. How can it be held that there can be no resurrection, while yet it is admitted that Christ rose? The argument here is twofold.

(1.) That Christ rose was one instance of a fact which demonstrated that there had been a resurrection, and of course that it was possible.

(2.) That such was the connexion between Christ and his people that the admission of this fact involved also the doctrine that all his people would also rise. This argument Paul states at length in the following verses. It was probably held by them that the resurrection was impossible. To all this, Paul answers in accordance with the principles of inductive philosophy as now understood, by demonstrating a fact, and showing that such an event had occurred, and that consequently all the difficulties were met. Facts are unanswerable demonstrations; and when a fact is established, all the obstacles and difficulties in the way must be admitted to be overcome. So philosophers now reason; and Paul, in accordance with these just principles, laboured simply to establish the fact that one had been raised, and thus met at once all the objections which could be urged against the doctrine. It would have been most in accordance with the philosophy of the Greeks to have gone into a metaphysical discussion to show that it was not impossible or absurd, and this might have been done. It was most in accordance with the principles of true philosophy, however, to establish the fact at once, and to argue from that, and thus to meet all the difficulties at once. The doctrine of the resurrection, therefore, does not rest on a metaphysical subtilty; it does not depend on human reasoning; it does not depend on analogy; it rests just as the sciences of astronomy, chemistry, anatomy, botany, and natural philosophy do, on well ascertained facts; and it is now a well understood principle of all true science, that no difficulty, no obstacle, no metaphysical subtilty, no embarrassment about being able to see how it is, is to be allowed to destroy the conviction in the mind which the facts are fitted to produce.

(b) "how say" Acts 26:8 Verse 13. But if there be no resurrection of the dead. If the whole subject is held to be impossible and absurd, then it must follow that Christ is not risen, since there were the same difficulties in the way of raising him up which will exist in any case. He was dead; and was buried. He had lain in the grave three days. His human soul had left the body. His frame had become cold and stiff. The blood had ceased to circulate, and the lungs to heave. In his case there was the same difficulty in raising him up to life that there is in any other; and if it is held to be impossible and absurd that the dead should rise, then it must follow that Christ has not been raised. This is the first consequence which Paul states as resulting from the denial of this doctrine, and this is inevitable. Paul thus shows them that the denial of the doctrine, or the maintaining the general proposition, "that the dead would not rise," led also to the denial of the fact that the Lord Jesus had risen, and, consequently, to the denial of Christianity altogether, and the annihilation of all their hopes. There was, moreover, such a close connexion between Christ and his people, that the resurrection of the Lord Jesus made their resurrection certain. See 1Thes 4:14. Jn 14:19.

(c) "but if there be no resurrection" 1Thes 4:14 Verse 14. And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain. Another consequence which must follow if it be held that there was no resurrection, and consequently that Christ was not risen. It would be vain and useless to preach. The substance of their preaching was, that Christ was raised up; and all their, preaching was based on that. If that were not true, the whole system was false, and Christianity was an imposition. The word vain here seems to include the idea of useless, idle, false. It would be false to affirm that the Christian system was from heaven; it would be useless to proclaim such a system, as it could save no one.

And your faith is also vain. It is useless to believe. It can be of no advantage. If Christ was not raised, he was an impostor, since he repeatedly declared that he would rise, (Mt 16:21, 17:22,23, Lk 9:22); and since the whole of his religion depended on that. The system could not be true unless Christ had been raised, as he said he would be; and to believe a false system could be of no use to any man. The argument here is one addressed to all their feelings, their hopes, and their belief. It is drawn from all their convictions that the system was true. Were they, could they be prepared to admit a doctrine which involved the consequence that all the evidences which they had that the apostles preached the truth were delusive, and that all the evidences of the truth of Christianity which had affected their minds and won their hearts were false and deceptive? If they were not prepared for this, then it followed that they should not abandon or doubt the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead.

(a) "if Christ" Acts 17:31 Verse 15. Yea, and we are found. We are; or we shall be proved to be. It will follow, if the Lord Jesus was not raised up, that we have been false witnesses.

Of God. Respecting God. It will be found that we have affirmed that which is not true of God; or have said that he has done that which he has not done. Nothing could be regarded as a greater crime than this, whatever might be the immediate subject under consideration. To bear false witness of a man, or to say that a man has done what he has not done, is regarded as a grievous crime. How much more so to bear false testimony of God.

Because we have testified of God. Or, rather, against God, (κατατουθεου.) Our evidence has been against him. We have affirmed that which is not true; and this is against God. It is implied here, that it would be a crime to testify that God had raised up the Lord Jesus if he had not done it; or that it would be affirming that of God which would be against his character, or which it would be improper for him to do. This would be so,

(1.) because it would be wrong to bear any false witness of God, or to affirm that he had done what he had not done;

(2.) because if the Lord Jesus had not been raised up, it would prove that he was an impostor, since he had declared that he would be raised up; and to affirm of God that he had raised up an impostor would be against him, and would be highly dishonourable to him.

If the dead rise not. If there is, and can be no resurrection. If this general proposition is true, that there can be no resurrection, then it will apply to Christ as well as any others, and must prove that he did not rise. The argument in this verse is this:

(1.) If it was denied that Christ was raised, it would prove that all the apostles were false witnesses of the worst character--false witnesses against God.

(2.) This the apostle seems to have presumed they could not believe. They had had too many evidences that they spoke the truth; they had seen their uniform respect for God, and desire to bear witness of him and in his favour; they had had too conclusive evidence that they were inspired by him, and had the power of working miracles; they were too fully convinced of their honesty, truth, and piety, ever to believe that they could be false witnesses against God. They had had ample opportunity to know whether God did raise up the Lord Jesus; and they were witnesses who had no inducement to bear a false witness in the case.

(*) "witnesses of God" "concerning" Verse 16. For if the dead rise not, etc. This is a repetition of what is said in 1Cor 15:13. It is repeated her, evidently, because of its importance. It was a great and momentous truth which would bear repetition, that if there was no resurrection, as some held, then it would follow that the Lord Jesus was not raised up. Verse 17. Your faith is vain. 1Cor 15:14. The meaning of this passage here is, that their faith was vain, because, if Christ was not raised up, they were yet unpardoned sinners. The pardon of sin was connected with the belief of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and, if he was not raised, they were still in a state of sin.

Ye are yet in your sins. Your sins are yet unpardoned. They can be forgiven only by faith in him, and by the efficacy of his blood. But if he was not raised, he was an impostor; and, of course, all your hopes of pardon by him, and through him, must be vain. The argument in this verse consists in an appeal to their Christian experience and their hopes. It may be thus expressed:

(1.) You have reason to believe that your sins are forgiven. You cherish that belief on evidence that is satisfactory to you. But if Christ is not raised, that cannot be true. He was an impostor, and sins cannot be forgiven by him. As you are not, and cannot be prepared to admit that your sins are not forgiven, you cannot admit a doctrine which involves that.

(2.) You have evidence that you are not under the dominion of sin. You have repented of it; have forsaken it; and are leading a holy life. You know that, and cannot be induced to doubt this fact. But all that is to be traced to the doctrine that the Lord Jesus rose from the dead. It is only by believing that, and the doctrines which are connected with it, that the power of sin in the heart has been destroyed. And as you cannot doubt that under the influence of that truth you have been enabled to break off from your sins, so you cannot admit a doctrine which would involve it as a consequence that you are yet under the condemnation and the dominion of sin. You must believe, therefore, that the Lord Jesus rose; and that, if he rose, others will also. This argument is good also now, just so far as there is evidence that, through the belief of a risen Saviour, the dominion of sin has been broken; and every Christian is, therefore, in an important sense, a witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus,--a living proof that a system which can work so great changes, and produce such evidence that sins are forgiven as are furnished in the conversion of sinners, must be from God; and, of course, that the work of the Lord Jesus was accepted, and that he was raised up from the dead.

(b) "your faith" Rom 4:25 Verse 18. Then they also, etc. This verse contains a statement of another consequence which must follow from the denial of the resurrection-that all Christians who had died had faded of salvation, and were destroyed.

Which are fallen asleep in Christ. Which have died as Christians. 1Cor 15:6; 1Thes 4:15.

Are perished. Are destroyed; are not saved. They hoped to have been saved by the merits of the Lord Jesus; they trusted to a risen Saviour, and fixed all their hopes of heaven there; but if he did not rise, of course the whole system was delusion, and they have failed of heaven, and been destroyed. Their bodies lie in the grave, and return to their native dust without the prospect of a resurrection, and their souls axe destroyed. The argument here is mainly an appeal to their feelings: "Can you believe it possible that the good men who have believed in tile Lord Jesus are destroyed? Can you believe that your best friends, your kindred, and your fellow Christians who have died, have gone down to perdition? Can you believe that they will sink to woe with the impenitent, and the polluted, and abandoned? If you cannot, then it must follow that they are saved. And then it will follow that you cannot embrace a doctrine which involves this consequence." And this argument is a sound one still. There are multitudes who are made good men by the gospel. They are holy, humble, self-denying, and prayerful friends of God. They have become such by the belief of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Can it be believed that they will be destroyed? That they will perish with the profane, and licentious, and unprincipled . That they will go down to dwell with the polluted and the wicked? "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" Gen 18:25. If it cannot be so believed, then they will be saved; and if saved, it follows that the system is true which saves them, and, of course, that the Lord Jesus rose from the dead. We may remark here, that a denim of the truth of Christianity involves the belief that its friends will perish with others; that all their hopes are vain; and that their expectations are delusive. He, therefore, who becomes an infidel, believes that his pious friends--his sainted father, his holy mother, his lovely Christian sister or child--are deluded and deceived; that they will sink down to the grave to rise no more; that their hopes of heaven will all vanish, and that they will be destroyed with the profane, the impure, and the sensual. And if infidelity demands this faith of its votaries, it is a system which strikes at the very happiness of social life, and at all our convictions of what is true and right. It is a system that is withering and blighting to the best hopes of men. Can it be believed that God will destroy those who are living to his honour; who are pure in heart, and lovely in life, and who have been made such by the Christian religion? If it cannot, then every man knows that Christianity is not false, and that infidelity IS NOT TRUE. Verse 19. If in this life only we have hope in Christ. If our hope in Christ shall not be followed by the resurrection of the dead and future glory, and if all our hopes shall be disappointed.

We are, etc. Doddridge, Macknight, Grotius, and some others, suppose that this refers to the apostles only; and that the sense is, that if there was no resurrection, they, of all men, would be most to be pitied, since they had exposed themselves to such a variety of dangers and trials, in which nothing could sustain them but the hope of immortality. If they failed in that, they failed in everything. They were regarded as the most vile of the human family; they suffered more from persecution, poverty, and perils, than other men; and if, after all, they were to be deprived of all their hopes, and disappointed in their expectation of the resurrection, their condition would be more deplorable than that of any other men. But there is no good reason for supposing that the word "we," here, is to be limited to the apostles. For,

(1.) Paul had not mentioned the apostles particularly in the previous verses; and,

(2.) the argument demands that it should be understood of all Christians, and the declaration is as true, substantially, of all Christians as it was of the apostles.

Of all men most miserable. More to be pitied or commiserated than any other class of men. The word here used (ελεεινοτεροι) means, properly, more deserving of pity, more pitiable. It may mean, sometimes, more wretched, or unhappy; but this is not necessarily its meaning, nor is it its meaning here. It refers rather to their condition and hopes than to their personal feeling; and does not mean that Christians are unhappy, or that their religion does not produce comfort, but that their condition would be most deplorable; they would be more deserving of pity than any other class of men. This would be,

(1.) because no other men had so elevated hopes, and, of course, no others could experience so great disappointment.

(2.) They were subjected to more trials than any other class of men. They were persecuted and reviled, and subjected to toil, and privation, and want, on account of their religion; and if, after all, they were to be disappointed, their condition was truly deplorable.

(3.) They do not indulge in the pleasures of this life; they do not give themselves, as others do, to the enjoyments of this world. They voluntarily subject themselves to trial and self-denial; and if they are not admitted to eternal life, they are not only disappointed in this, but they are cut off from the sources of happiness which their fellow-men enjoy in this world.--Calvin.

(4.) On the whole, therefore, there would be disappointed hopes, and trials, and poverty, and want, and all for nought; and no condition could be conceived to be more deplorable than where a man was looking for eternal life, and for it subjecting himself to a life of want, and poverty, and persecution, and tears, and should be finally disappointed. This passage, therefore, does not mean that virtue and piety are not attended with happiness; it does not mean that, even if there were no future state, a man would not be more happy if he walked in the paths of virtue, than if he lived a life of sin; it does not mean that the Christian has no happiness in religion itself--in the love of God, and in prayer and praise, and in purity of life. In all this he has enjoyment; and even if there were no heaven, a life of virtue and piety would be more happy than a life of sin. But it means that the condition of the Christian would be more deplorable than that of other men; he would be more to be pitied. All his high hopes would be disappointed. Other men have no such hopes to be dashed to the ground; and, of course, no other men would be such objects of pity and compassion. The argument in this verse is derived from the high hopes of the Christian. "Could they believe that all their hopes were to be frustrated? Could they subject themselves to all these trials and privations, without believing that they would rise from the dead?

Were they prepared, by the denial of the doctrine of the resurrection, to put themselves in the condition of the most miserable and wretched of the human family--to admit that they were in a condition most to be deplored?

(a) "we are of" Jn 16:2, 1Cor 4:13, 2Ti 3:12 Verse 20. But now is Christ risen, etc. This language is the bursting forth of a full heart and of overpowering conviction. It would seem as if Paul were impatient of the slow process of argument; weary of meeting objections, and of stating the consequences of a denial of the doctrine; and longing to give utterance to what he knew, that Christ was risen from the dead. That was a point on which he was certain. He had seen him after he was risen; and he could no more doubt this fact than he could any other which he had witnessed with his own eyes. He makes, therefore, this strong affirmation; and in doing it, he at the same time affirms that the dead will also rise, since he had shown (1Cor 15:12-18) that all the objection to the doctrine of the resurrection was removed by the fact that Christ had risen, and had shown that his resurrection involved the certainty that his people also would rise. There is peculiar force in the word "now" in this verse. The meaning may be thus expressed: "I have shown the consequences which would follow from the supposition that Christ was not raised up. I have shown how it would destroy all our hopes, plunge us into grief, annihilate our faith, make our preaching vain, and involve us in the belief that our pious friends have perished, and that we are yet in our sins. I have shown how it would produce the deepest disappointment and misery. But, all this was mere supposition. There is no reason to apprehend any such consequences, or to be thus alarmed. Christ is risen. Of that there is no doubt. That is not to be called in question. It is established by irrefragable testimony; and consequently our hopes are not vain, our faith is not useless, our pious friends have not perished, and we shall not be disappointed."

And become the firstfruits. The word rendered firstfruits (απαρχη occurs in the New Testament in the following places: Rom 8:23, Rom 8:23, Rom 11:16, 16:5, 1Cor 15:20,23 Jas 1:18, Rev 14:4. It occurs often in the Seventy as the translation of , fat, or fatness, (Nu 18:12,29,30,32;) as the translation of , the tenth, or tithe, (De 12:6;) of , iniquity, (Nu 18:1;) of , the beginning, the commencement, the first, (Ex 23:19, Lev 23:10, Nu 15:18,19,etc.;) of , oblation, offering; lifting up; of that which is lifted up or waved as the first sheaf of the harvest, etc., Ex 25:2,3, 35:5 Nu 5:9, 18:8, etc. The first-fruits, or the first sheaf of ripe grain, was required to be offered to the Lord, and was waved before him by the priest, as expressing the sense of gratitude by the husbandman, and his recognition of the fact that God had a right to all that he had, Lev 23:10-14. The word, therefore, comes to have two senses, or to involve two ideas:

(1.) That which is first, the beginning, or that which has the priority of time; and

(2) that which is a part and portion of the whole which is to follow, and which is the earnest or pledge of that; as the first sheaf of ripe grain was not only the first in order of time, but was the earnest or pledge of the entire harvest which was soon to succeed. In allusion to this, Paul uses the word here. It was not merely or mainly that Christ was the first in order of time that rose from the dead--for Lazarus and the widow's son had been raised before him--but it was that he was chief in regard to the dignity, value, and importance of his rising; he was connected with all that should rise, as the first sheaf of the harvest was with the crop; he was a part of the mighty harvest of the resurrection, and his rising was a portion of that great rising, as the sheaf was a portion of the harvest itself; and he was so connected with them all, and their rising so depended on his, that his resurrection was a demonstration that they would rise. It may also be implied here, as Grotius and Schoettgen have remarked, that he is the first of those who were raised so as not to die again; and that, therefore, those raised by Elisha and by the Saviour himself do not come into the account. They all died again; but the Saviour will not die, nor will those whom he will raise up in the resurrection die any more. He is, therefore, the first of those that thus rise, and a portion of that great host which shall be raised to die no more. May there not be another idea? The first sheaf of the harvest was consecrated to God, and then all the harvest was regarded as consecrated to him. May it not be implied that, by the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, all those of whom he speaks are regarded as sacred to God, and as consecrated and accepted by the resurrection and acceptance of Him who was the first-fruits?

Of them that slept. Of the pious dead. 1Cor 15:6.

(b) "now is" 1Pet 1:3 (c) "first fruits" Acts 26:23, Col 1:18, Rev 1:5 Verse 21. For since by man came death. By Adam, or by means of his transgression. See 1Cor 15:22. The sense is, evidently, that in consequence of the sin of Adam all men die, or are subjected to temporal death. Or, in other words, man would not have died had it not been for the crime of the first man. Rom 5:12. This passage may be regarded as proof that death would not have entered the world had it not been for transgression; or, in other words, if man had not sinned, he would have remained immortal on the earth, or would have been translated to heaven, as Enoch and Elijah were, without seeing death. The apostle here, by "man," undoubtedly refers to Adam; but the particular and specific idea which he intends to insist on is, that as death came by human nature, or by a human being, by a man, so it was important and proper that immortality, or freedom from death, should come in the same way, by one who was a man. Man introduced death; man also would recover from death. The evil was introduced by one man; the recovery would be by another.

By man came also. By the Lord Jesus, the Son of God in human nature. The resurrection came by him, because he first rose--first of those who should not again die; because he proclaimed the doctrine, and placed it on a firm foundation; and because by his power the dead will be raised up. Thus he came to counteract the evils of the fall, and to restore man to more than his primeval dignity and honour. The resurrection through Christ win be with the assurance that all who are raised up by him shall never die again.

(d) "For since" Rom 5:12,17 (e) "came death, by man" Jn 11:25 Verse 22. For as in Adam. εντωαδαμ. By Adam; by the act, or by means of Adam; as a consequence of his act. His deed was the procuring cause, or the reason, why all are subjected to temporal death. See Gen 3:19. It does not mean that all men became actually dead when he sinned, for they had not then an existence; but it must mean that the death of all can be traced to him as the procuring cause, and that his act made it certain that all that came into the world would be mortal. The sentence which went forth against him (Gen 3:19) went forth against all; affected all; involved all in the certainty of death; as the sentence that was passed on the serpent (Gen 3:14) made it certain that all serpents would be "cursed above all cattle," and be prone upon the earth; the sentence that was passed upon the woman (Gen 3:16) made it certain that all women would be subjected to the same condition of suffering to which Eve was subjected; and the sentence that was passed on man, (Gen 3:17)--that he should cultivate the ground in sorrow all the days of his life, that it should bring forth thistles and thorns to him, (Gen 3:18,) that he should eat bread in the sweat of his brow, (Gen 3:19)--made it certain that this would be the condition of all men as well as of Adam. It was a blow at the head of the human family, and they were subjected to the same train of evils as he was himself. In like manner they were subjected to death. It was done in Adam, or by Adam, in the same way as it was in him, or by him, that they were subjected to toil, and to the Necessity of procuring food by the sweat of the brow. Rom 5:12, also notes on Rom 5:13-19. See 1Cor 15:47,48.

All die. All mankind are subjected to temporal death; or are mortal. This passage has been often adduced to prove that all mankind became sinful in Adam, or in virtue of a covenant transaction with him; and that they are subjected to spiritual death as a punishment for his sins. But, whatever may be the truth on that subject, it is clear that this passage does not relate to it, and should not be adduced as a proof text. For

(1.) the words die and dieth obviously and usually refer to temporal death; and they should be so understood, unless there is something in the connexion which requires us to understand them in a figurative and metaphorical sense. But there is, evidently, no such necessity here.

(2.) The context requires us to understand this as relating to temporal death. There is not here, as there is in Rom 5, any intimation that men became sinners in consequence of the transgression of Adam; nor does the course of the apostle's argument require him to make any statement on that subject. His argument has reference to the subject of temporal death, and the resurrection of the dead; and not to the question in what way men became sinners.

(3.) The whole of this argument relates to the resurrection of the dead. That is the main, the leading, the exclusive point. He is demonstrating that the dead would rise. He is showing how this would be done. It became, therefore, important for him to show in what way men were subjected to temporal death. His argument, therefore, requires him to make a statement on that point, and that only; and to show that the resurrection by Christ was adapted to meet and overcome the evils of the death to which men were subjected by the sin of the first man. In Rom 5 the design of Paul is to prove that the effects of the work of Christ were more than sufficient to meet ALL the evils introduced by the sin of Adam. This leads him to an examination there of the question in what way men became sinners. Here the design is to show that the work of Christ is adapted to overcome the evils of the sin of Adam in one specific matter--the matter under discussion; that is, on the point of the resurrection; and his argument therefore requires him to show only that temporal death, or mortality, was introduced by the first man, and that this has been counteracted by the second; and to this specific point the interpretation of this passage should be confined. Nothing is more important in interpreting the Bible than to ascertain the specific point in the argument of a writer to be defended or illustrated, and then to confine the interpretation to that. The argument of the apostle here is ample to prove that all men are subjected to temporal death by the sin of Adam; and that this evil is counteracted fully by the resurrection of Christ, and the resurrection through him. And to this point the passage should be limited.

(4.) If this passage means that in Adam, or by him, all men became sinners, then the correspondent declaration, "all shall be made alive," must mean that all men shall become righteous, or that all shall be saved. This would be the natural and obvious interpretation; since the words "be made alive" must have reference to the words "all die," and must affirm the correlative and opposite fact. If the phrase "all die" there means all become sinners, then the phrase "all be made alive" must mean all shall be made holy, or be recovered from their spiritual death; and thus an obvious argument is furnished for the doctrine of universal salvation, which it is difficult, if not impossible, to meet. It is not a sufficient answer to this to say that the word "all," in the latter part of the sentence, means all the elect, or all the righteous; for its most natural and obvious meaning is, that it is co-extensive with the word "all" in the former, part of the verse. And although it has been held by many who suppose that the passage refers only to the resurrection of the dead, that it means that all the righteous shall be raised up, or all who are given to Christ, yet that interpretation is not the obvious one, nor is it yet sufficiently clear to make it the basis of an argument, or to meet the strong argument which the advocate of universal salvation will derive from the former interpretation of the passage. It is true literally that ALL the dead will rise; it is not true literally that all who became mortal, or became sinners by means of Adam, will be saved. And it must be held as a great principle, that this passage is not to be so interpreted as to teach the doctrine of the salvation of all men. At least, this may be adopted as a principle in the argument with those who adduce it to prove that all men became sinners by the transgression of Adam. This passage, therefore, should not be adduced in proof of the doctrine of imputation, or as relating to the question how men became sinners, but should be limited to the subject that was immediately under discussion in the argument of the apostle. That object was, to show that the doctrine of the resurrection by Christ was such as to meet the obvious doctrine that men became mortal by Adam; or that the one was adapted to counteract the other.

Even so. ουτω. In this manner; referring not merely to the certainty of the event, but to the mode or manner. As the death of all was occasioned by the sin of one, even so, in like manner, the resurrection of all shall be produced by one. His resurrection shall meet and counteract the evils introduced by the other, so far as the subject under discussion is concerned; that is, so far as relates to temporal death.

In christ. By Christ; in virtue of him; or as the result of his death and resurrection. Many commentators have supposed that the word "all" here refers only to believers, meaning all who were united to Christ, or all who were his friends; all included in a covenant with him; as the word "all," in the former member of the sentence, means all who were included in the covenant with Adam--that is, all mankind. But to this view there are manifest objections.

(1.) It is not the obvious sense; it is not that which will occur to the great mass of men who interpret the Scriptures on the principles of common sense; it is an interpretation which is to be made out by reasoning and by theology--always a suspicious circumstance in interpreting the Bible.

(2.) It is not necessary. All the wicked will be raised up from the dead, as well as all the righteous, Dan 12:2, Jn 5:28,29.

(3.) The form of the passage requires us to understand the word "all" in the same sense in both members, unless there be some indispensable necessity for limiting the one or the other.

(4.) The argument of the apostle requires this. For his object is to show that the effect of the sin of Adam, by introducing temporal death, will be counteracted by Christ in raising up all who die; which would not be shown if the apostle meant to say that only a part of those who had died in consequence of the sin of Adam would be raised up. The argument would then be inconclusive. But now it is complete, if it be shown that all shall be raised up, whatever may become of them afterwards. The sceptre of death shall be broken, and his dominion destroyed, by the fact that ALL shall be raised up from the dead.

Be made alive. Be raised from the dead; be made alive, in a sense contradistinguished from that in which he here says they were subjected to death by Adam. If it should be held that that means that all were made sinners by him, then this means, as has been observed, that all shall be made righteous--and the doctrine of universal salvation has an unanswerable argument; if it means, as it obviously does, that all were subjected to temporal death by him, then it means that all shall be raised from the dead by Christ.

(*) "in Christ" "by Christ" Verse 23. But every man. Every one, including Christ as well as others.

In his own order. In his proper order, rank, place, time. The word ταγμα usually relates to military order or array; to the arrangement of a cohort, or band of troops; to their being properly marshalled with the officers at the head, and every man in his proper place in the ranks. Here it means that there was a proper order to be observed in the resurrection of the dead. And the design of the apostle is, probably, to counteract the idea that the resurrection was passed already, or that there was no future resurrection to be expected. The order which is here referred to is, doubtless, mainly that of time; meaning that Christ would be first, and then that the others would follow. But it also means that Christ would be first, because it was proper that he should be first. He was first in rank, in dignity, and in honour; he was the leader of all others, and their resurrection depended on his. And as it was proper that a leader or commander should have the first place on a march, or in an enterprise involving peril or glory, so it was proper that Christ should be first in the resurrection, and that the others should follow on in due order and time.

Christ the first-fruits. Christ first in time, and the pledge that they should rise. 1Cor 15:20.

Afterward. After he has risen. Not before, because their resurrection depended on him.

They that are Christ's. They who are Christians. The apostle, though in 1Cor 15:22 he had stated the truth that all the dead would rise, yet here only mentions Christians, because to them only would the doctrine be of any consolation, and because it was to them particularly that this whole argument was directed.

At his coming. When he shall come to judge the world, and to receive his people to himself. This proves that the dead will not be raised until Christ shall reappear. He shall come for that purpose; and he shall assemble all the dead, and shall take his people to himself. See Mt 25. And this declaration fully met the opinion of those who held that the resurrection was past already. See 2Ti 2:18.

(a) "But every man" 1Thes 4:15-17 Verse 24. Then cometh the end. Then is the end; or then is the consummation. It does not mean that the end, or consummation, is to follow that event; but that this will be the ending, the winding up, the consummation of the affairs under the mediatorial reign of Christ. The word end (τελος) denotes, properly, a limit, termination, completion of anything. The proper and obvious meaning of the word here is, that then shall be the end or completion of the work of redemption. That shall have been done which was intended to be done by the incarnation and the work of the atonement; the race shall be redeemed; the friends of God shall be completely recovered; and the administration of the affairs of the universe shall be conducted as they were before the incarnation of the Redeemer. Some understand the word "end" here, however, as a metaphor, meaning "the last, or the rest of the dead;" but this is a forced and improbable interpretation. The word end here may refer to the end of human affairs, or the end of the kingdoms of this world; or it may refer to the end of the mediatorial kingdom of the Redeemer-- the consummation of his peculiar reign and work resulting in the surrender of the kingdom to the Father. The connexion demands the last interpretation, though this involves also the former.

When he shall have delivered up. παραδω. This word means, properly, to give near, with, or to any one; to give over, to deliver up. --Robinson. It is applied to the act of delivering up persons to the power or authority of others--as, e.g., to magistrates for trial and condemnation, (Mt 5:25, Mk 15:1, Lk 20:20;) to lictors, or soldiers, for punishment, (Mt 18:34;) or to one's enemies, Mt 26:15. It is applied also to persons or things delivered over or surrendered, to do or suffer anything, Acts 14:26, 1Cor 13:3, Eph 4:19. It is also applied to persons or things delivered over to the care, charge, or supervision of any one, in the sense of giving up, intrusting, committing, Mt 11:27, 25:14, Lk 4:6, 10:22. Here the obvious sense is that of surrendering, giving back, delivering up, rendering up that which had been received, implying that an important trust had been received, which was now to be rendered back. And according to this interpretation it means,

(1.) that the Lord Jesus had received or been intrusted with an important power or office as Mediator, Mt 18:18;

(2.) that he had executed the purpose implied in that trust or commission; and,

(3.) that he was now rendering back to God that office or authority which he had received at his hands. As the work had been accomplished which had been contemplated in his design; as there would be no further necessity for mediation when redemption should have been made, and his church recovered from sin and brought to glory, there would be no further need of that peculiar arrangement which had been implied in the work of redemption, and, of course, all the intrustment of power involved in that would be again restored to the hands of God. The idea, says Grotius, is, that he would deliver up the kingdom as the governors of provinces render again or deliver up their commission and authority to the Caesars who appointed them. There is no absurdity in this view. For if the world was to be redeemed, it was necessary that the Redeemer should be intrusted with power sufficient for his work. When that work was done, and there was no further need of that peculiar exercise of power, then it would be proper that it should be restored, or that the government of God should be administered as it was before the work of redemption was undertaken; that the Divinity, or the God-head, as such, should preside over the destinies of the universe. Of course, it will not follow that the Second Person of the Trinity will surrender all power, or cease to exercise government. It will be that power only which he had as Mediator; and whatever part in the administration of the government of the universe he shared as Divine before the incarnation, he will still share, with the additional glory and honour of having redeemed a world by his death.

The kingdom. This word means properly dominion, reign, the exercise of kingly power. In the New Testament it means commonly the reign of the Messiah, or the dominion which God would exercise through the Messiah; the reign of God over men by the laws and institutions of the Messiah. Mt 3:2. Here it means, I think, evidently, dominion in general. It cannot denote the peculiar administration over the world involved in the work of mediation, for that will be ended; but it means that the empire, the sovereignty, shall have been delivered up to God. His enemies shall have been subdued. His power shall have been asserted. The authority of God shall have been established, and the kingdom, or the dominion, shall be in the hands of God himself; and he shall reign, not in the peculiar form which existed in the work of mediation, but absolutely, and as he did over obedient minds before the incarnation.

To God. To God as God; to the Divinity. The Mediator shall have given up the peculiar power and rule as Mediator, and it shall be exercised by God as God.

Even the Father. And (και) the Father. The word Father, as applied to God in the Scriptures, is used in two senses: to designate the Father, the first person of the Trinity as distinguished from the Son; and in a broader, wider sense, to denote God as sustaining the relation of a Father to his creatures--as the Father of all. Instances of this use are too numerous to be here particularly referred to. It is in this latter sense, perhaps, that the word is used here--not to denote that the second person of the Trinity is to surrender all power into the hands of the first, or that he is to cease to exercise dominion and control; but that the power is to be yielded into the hands of God as God, i.e., as the universal Father, as the Divinity, without being exercised in any peculiar and special manner by the different persons of the Godhead, as had been done in the work of redemption. At the close of the work of redemption this peculiar arrangement would cease; and God, as the universal Father and Ruler of all, would exercise the government of the world. 1Cor 15:28.

When he shall have put down. When he shall have abolished, or brought to nought, all that opposed the reign of God.

All rule, etc. All those mighty powers that opposed God and resisted his reign. The words here used do not seem intended to denote the several departments or forms of opposition, but to be general terms, meaning that whatever opposed God should be subdued. They include, of course, the kingdoms of this world; the sins, pride, and corruption of the human heart; the powers of darkness-the spiritual dominions that oppose God on earth and in hell, and death and the grave. All shall be completely subdued, and cease to interpose any obstacles to the advancement of his kingdom and to his universal reign. A monarch reigns when all his enemies are subdued or destroyed; or when they are prevented from opposing his will, even though all should not voluntarily submit to his will. The following remarks of Prof. Bush present a plausible and ingenious view of this difficult passage, and they are, therefore, subjoined here. "If the opinion of the eminent critic, Storr, may be admitted,

that the kingdom here said to be delivered up to the

Father is not the kingdom of Christ, but the rule and

dominion of all adverse powers,--an opinion rendered very

probable by the following words: 'when he shall have

put down (Gr., done away, abolished) all rule, and all

authority and power' -- and 1Cor 15:25, 'till he hath

put all enemies under his feet,'--then is the passage of

identical import with Rev 11:15, referring to precisely

the same period:' And the seventh angel sounded; and there

were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of the

world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ;

and he shall reign for ever and ever.' It is therefore, we

conceive, but a peculiar mode of denoting the transfer,

the making over of the kingdoms of this world from

their former despotic and antichristian rulers to the

sovereignty of Jesus Christ, the appointed heir and head of

all things, whose kingdom is to be everlasting. If this

interpretation be correct, we are prepared to advance a

step farther, and suggest that the phrase,

he shall have delivered up, (Greek, παραδω,)

be understood as an instance of the idiom in which the verb

is used without any personal nominative, but has reference

to the purpose of God as expressed in the Scriptures; so

that the passage may be read, Then cometh the end, (i.e., not

the close, the final winding up, but the perfect development,

expansion, completion, consummation of the Divine plans in

regard to this world,) when the prophetic announcements of

the Scriptures require the delivering up (i.e., the making

over) of all adverse dominion into the hands of the

Messiah, to whose supremacy we are taught to expect that

everything will finally be made subject."--

Illustrations of Scripture. A more extended examination of this difficult passage may be seen in Storr's Opuscala, vol. i., pp. 274--282. See also Biblical Repository, vol. iii., pp. 748--755.

(a) "kingdom to God" Dan 7:14,27 Verse 25. For he must reign. It is fit, or proper, (δει,) that he should reign till this is accomplished. It is proper that the mediator kingdom should continue till this great work is effected. The word "must" here refers to the propriety of this continuance of his reign, and to the fact that this was contemplated and predicted as the work which he would accomplish. He came to subdue all his enemies. See Ps 2:6-10, 90:1, "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool." Paul, doubtless, had this passage in his eye as affirming the necessity that he should reign until all his foes should be subdued. That this refers to the Messiah is abundantly clear from Mt 22:44,45.

(a) "he must reign" Ps 2:6-10, 45:3-6, 90:1, Eph 1:22, Heb 1:13 Verse 26. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. The other foes of God should be subdued before the final resurrection. The enmity of the human heart should be subdued by the triumphs of the gospel. The sceptre of Satan should be broken and wrested from him. The false systems of religion that had tyrannized over men should be destroyed. The gospel should have spread everywhere, and the world be converted to God. And nothing should remain but to subdue or destroy death, and that would be by the resurrection. It would be,

(1.) because the resurrection would be a triumph over death, showing that there was one of greater power, and that the sceptre would be wrested from the hands of death.

(2.) Because death would cease to reign. No more would ever die. All that should be raised up would live for ever; and the effects of sin and rebellion in this world would be thus for ever ended, and the kingdom of God restored. Death is here personified as a tyrant, exercising despotic power over the human race; and he is to be subdued.

(b) "be destroyed is death" Hoss 13:14, 2Ti 1:10, Rev 20:14 Verse 27. For he hath put. God has put by promise, purpose, or decree.

All things under his feet. He has made all things subject to him; or has appointed him to be head over all things. Compare Mt 28:18, Jn 17:2, Eph 1:20-22. It is evident that Paul here refers to some promise or prediction respecting the Messiah, though he does not expressly quote any passage, or make it certain to what he refers. The words "hath put all things under his feet" are found in Ps 8:6, as applicable to man, and as designed to show the dignity and dominion of man. Whether the psalm has any reference to the Messiah has been made a question. Those who are disposed to see an examination of this question may find it in Stuart on the Hebrews, on chap. ii. 6--8; and in Excursus ix. of the same work, pp. 568--570; Ed. 1833. In the passage before us, it is not necessary to suppose that Paul meant to say that the psalm had a particular reference to the Messiah. All that is implied is, that it was the intention of God to subdue all things to him; this was the general strain of the prophecies in regard to him; this was the purpose of God; and this idea is accurately expressed in the words of the psalm; or these words will convey the general sense of the prophetic writings in regard to the Messiah. It may be true, also, that although the passage in Ps 8 has no immediate and direct reference to the Messiah, yet it includes him as one who possessed human nature. The psalm may be understood as affirming that all things were subjected to human nature; i.e., human nature had dominion and control over all. But this was more particularly and eminently true of the Messiah than of any other man. In all other cases, great as was the dignity of man, yet his control over "all things" was limited and partial. In the Messiah it was to be complete and entire. His dominion, therefore, was a complete fulfilment, i. e., filling up (πληρωμα) of the words in the psalm. Under Him alone was there to be an entire accomplishment of what is there said; and as that psalm was to be fulfilled, as it was to be true that it might be said of man that all things were subject to him, it was to be fulfilled mainly in the person of the Messiah, whose human nature was to be exalted above all things. Compare Heb 2:6-9.

But when he saith. When God says; or when it is said; when that promise is made respecting the Messiah.

It is manifest. It must be so; it must be so understood and interpreted.

That he is excepted, etc. That God is excepted; that it cannot mean that the appointing power is to be subject to him. Paul may have made this remark for several reasons. Perhaps,

(1.) to avoid the possibility of cavil, or misconstruction of the phrase, "all things," as if it meant that God would be included, and would be subdued to him; as, among the heathen, Jupiter is fabled to have expelled his father Saturn from his throne and from heaven.

(2.) It might be to prevent the supposition, from what Paul had said of the extent of the Son's dominion, that he was in any respect superior to the Father. It is implied by this exception here, that when the necessity for the peculiar mediatorial kingdom of the Son should cease, there would be a resuming of the authority and dominion of the Father, in the manner in which it subsisted before the incarnation.

(3.) The expression may also be regarded as intensive or emphatic; as denoting, in the most absolute sense, that there was nothing in the universe, but God, which was not subject to him. God was the only exception; and his dominion, therefore, was absolute over all other beings and things.

(c) "he hath put" Ps 8:6 Verse 28. And when, etc. In this future time, when this shall be accomplished. This implies that the time has not yet arrived, and that his dominion is now exercised, and that he is carrying forward his plans for the subjugation of all things to God.

Shall be subdued unto him. Shall be brought under subjection. When all his enemies shall be overcome and destroyed; or when the hearts of the redeemed shall be entirely subject to God. When God's kingdom shall be fully established over the universe. It shall then be seen that he is Lord of all. In the previous verses he had spoken of the promise that all things should be subjected to God; in this he speaks of its being actually done.

Then shall the Son also himself be subject, etc. It has been proposed to render this, "even then shall the Son," etc.; implying, that he had been all along subject to God; had acted under his authority; and that this subjection would continue even then in a sense similar to that in which it had existed; and that Christ would then continue to exercise a delegated authority over his people and kingdom. See an article "on the duration of Christ's kingdom," by Prof. Mills, in Bib. Rep. vol. iii. p. 748, seq. But to this interpretation there are objections.

(1.) It is not the obvious interpretation.

(2.) It does not seem to comport with the design and scope of the passage, which most evidently refers to some change, or rendering back of the authority of the Messiah; or to some resumption of authority by the Divinity, or by God as God, in a different sense from what existed under the Messiah.

(3.) Such a statement would be unnecessary and vain. Who could reasonably doubt that the Son would be as much subject to God when all things had been subdued to him as he was before?

(4.) It is not necessary to suppose this in order to reconcile the passage with what is said of the perpetuity of Christ's kingdom and his eternal reign. That he would reign--that his kingdom would be perpetual, and that it would be unending--was indeed clearly predicted. See 2Sam 7:16, Ps 45:6, Isa 9:6,7, Dan 2:44, 7:14, Lk 1:32,33, Heb 1:8. But these predictions may be all accomplished on the supposition that the peculiar mediatorial kingdom of the Messiah shah be given up to God, and that he shall be subject to him. For

(a.) his kingdom will be perpetual, in contradistinction from the kingdoms of this world. They are fluctuating, changing, short in their duration. His shall not cease, and shall continue to the end of time.

(b.) His kingdom shall be perpetual, because those who are brought under the laws of God, by him, shall remain subject to those laws for ever. The sceptre never shall be broken, and the kingdom shall abide to all eternity.

(c.) Christ, the Son of God, in his Divine nature, as God, shall never cease to reign. As Mediator, he may resign his commission and his peculiar office, having made an atonement, having recovered his people, having protected and guided them to heaven. Yet, as one with the Father, as the "Father of the everlasting age," (Isa 9:6,) he shall not cease to reign. The functions of a peculiar office may have been discharged, and delegated power laid down, and that which appropriately belongs to him in virtue of his own nature and relations may be resumed and executed for ever; and it shall still be true that the reign of the Son of God, in union, or in oneness with the Father, shall continue for ever.

(5.) The interpretation which affirms that the Son shall then be subject to the Father, in the sense of laying down his delegated authority, and ceasing to exercise his mediatorial reign, has been the common interpretation of all times. This remark is of value only because, in the interpretation of plain words, it is not probable that men of all classes and ranks in different ages would err.

The Son also himself. The term "Son of God" is applied to the Lord Jesus with reference to his human nature, his incarnation by the Holy Ghost, and his resurrection from the dead. Rom 1:4. It refers, I apprehend, to that in this place. It does not mean that the second person in the Trinity, as such, should be subject to the first; but it means the incarnate Son, the Mediator,--the man that was born and that was raised from the dead, and to whom this wide dominion had been given,--should resign that dominion, and that the government should be reassumed by the Divinity as God. As man, he shall cease to exercise any distinct dominion. This does not mean, evidently, that the union of the divine and human nature will be dissolved; nor that important purposes may not be answered by that continued union for ever; nor that the divine perfections may not shine forth in some glorious way through the man Christ Jesus; but that the purpose of government shall no longer be exercised in that way; the mediatorial kingdom, as such, shall no longer be continued, and power shall be exercised by God as God. The redeemed will still adore their Redeemer as their incarnate God, and dwell upon the remembrance of his work and upon his perfections, (Rev 1:5,6, 5:12, 11:16;) but not as exercising the peculiar power which he now has, and which was needful to effect their redemption.

That God may be all in all. That God may be SUPREME; that the Divinity, the Godhead, may rule; and that it may be seen that he is the Sovereign over all the universe. By the word "God" (οθεδς) Whitby and Hammond, I think correctly, understand the Godhead, the Divine Nature, the Divinity, consisting of the Three Persons, without respect to any peculiar office or kingdom.

(d) "shall be subdued" Php 3:21 (a) "unto him that put" 1Cor 11:3 Verse 29. Else what shall they do, etc. The apostle here resumes the argument for the resurrection which was interrupted at 1Cor 15:19. He goes on to state further consequences which must follow from the denial of this doctrine, and thence infers that the doctrine must be true. There is, perhaps, no passage of the New Testament in respect to which there has been a greater variety of interpretation than this; and the views of expositors now by no means harmonize in regard to its meaning. It is possible that Paul may here refer to some practice or custom which existed in his time respecting baptism, the knowledge of which is now lost. The various opinions which have been entertained in regard to this passage, together with an examination of them, may be seen in Pool's Synopsis, Rosenmuller, and Bloomfield. It may be not useless just to refer to some of them, that the perplexity of commentators may be seen.

(1.) It has been held by some, that by "the dead" here is meant the Messiah who was put to death, the plural being used for the singular, meaning "the dead one."

(2.) By others, that the word baptized here is taken in the sense of washing, cleansing, purifying, as in Mk 7:4, Heb 9:10 and that the sense is, that the dead were carefully washed and purified when buried, with the hope of the resurrection, and, as it were, preparatory to that.

(3.) By others, that to be baptized for the dead means to be baptized as dead, being baptized into Christ, and buried with him in baptism, and that by their immersion they were regarded as dead.

(4.) By others, that the apostle refers to a custom of vicarious baptism, or being baptized for those who were dead, referring to the practice of having some person baptized in the place of one who had died without baptism. This was the opinion of Grotius, Michaelis, Tertullian, and Ambrose. Such was the estimate which was formed, it is supposed, of the importance of baptism, that when one had died without being baptized, some other person was baptized over his dead body in his place. That this custom prevailed in the church after the time of Paul has been abundantly proved by Grotius, and is generally admitted. But the objections to this interpretation are obvious.

(a.) There is no evidence that such a custom prevailed in the time of Paul.

(b.) It cannot be believed that Paul would give countenance to a custom so senseless and so contrary to the Scripture, or that he would make it the foundation of a solemn argument.

(c.) It does not accord with the strain and purpose of his argument, If this custom had been referred to, his design would have led him to say, "What will become of them for whom others have been baptized? Are we to believe that they have perished?"

(d.) It is far more probable that the custom referred to in this opinion arose from an erroneous interpretation of this passage of Scripture, than that it existed in the time of Paul.

(5.) There remain two other opinions, both of which are plausible, and one of which is probably the true one. One is, that the word baptized is used here as it is in Mt 20:22,23, Mk 10:39 Lk 12:50, in the sense of being overwhelmed with calamities, trials, and sufferings; and as meaning that the apostles and others were subjected to great trials on account of the dead, i.e., in the hope of the resurrection, or with the expectation that the dead would rise. This is the opinion of Lightfoot, Rosenmuller, Pearce, Hornberg, Krause, and of Prof. Robinson, (Lex. art. βαπτιζω) and has much that is plausible. That the word is thus used to denote a deep sinking into calamities, there can be no doubt. And that the apostles and early Christians subjected themselves, or were subjected, to great and overwhelming calamities on account of the hope of the resurrection, is equally clear. This interpretation also agrees with the general tenor of the argument; and is an argument for the resurrection. And it implies that this was the full and constant belief of all who endured these trials, that there would be a resurrection of the dead. The argument would be, that they should be slow to adopt an opinion which would imply that all their sufferings were endured for nought, and that God had supported them in this in vain; that God had plunged them into all these sorrows, and had sustained them in them only to disappoint them. That this view is plausible, and that it suits the strain of remark in the following verses, is evident. But there are objections to it.

(a.) It is not the usual and natural meaning of the word baptize.

(b.) A metaphorical use of a word should not be resorted to unless necessary.

(c.) The literal meaning of the word here will as well meet the design of the apostle as the metaphorical.

(d.) This interpretation does not relieve us from any of the difficulties in regard to the phrase "for the dead;" and

(e.) it is altogether more natural to suppose that the apostle would derive his argument from the baptism of all who were Christians, than from the figurative baptism of a few who went into the perils of martyrdom. The other opinion therefore is, that the apostle here refers to baptism as administered to all believers. This is the most correct opinion; is the most simple, and best meets the design of the argument. According to this, it means that they had been baptized with the hope and expectation of a resurrection of the dead. They had received this as one of the leading doctrines of the gospel when they were baptized. It was a part of their full and firm belief that the dead would rise. The argument according to this interpretation is, that this was an essential article of the faith of a Christian; that it was embraced by all; that it constituted a part of their very profession; and that for any one to deny it, was to deny that which entered into the very foundation of the Christian faith. If they embraced a different doctrine, if they denied the doctrine of the resurrection, they struck a blow at the very nature of Christianity, and dashed all the hopes which had been cherished and expressed at their baptism. And what could they do? What would become of them? What would be the destiny of all who were thus baptized? Was it to be believed that all their hopes at baptism were vain, and that they would all perish? As such a belief could not be entertained, the apostle infers that, if they held to Christianity at all, they must hold to this doctrine as apart of their very profession. According to this view, the phrase "for the dead" means, with reference to the dead; with direct allusion to the condition of the dead, and their hopes; with a belief that the dead will rise. It is evident that the passage is elliptical, and this seems to be as probable as any interpretation which has been suggested. Mr. Locke says, frankly, "What this baptizing for the dead was, I know not; but it seems, by the following verses, to be something wherein they exposed themselves to the danger of death." Tindal translates it, "over the dead." Doddridge renders it, "in the room of the dead, who are just fallen in the cause of Christ, but are yet supported by a succession of new converts, who immediately offer themselves to fill up their places, as ranks of soldiers that advance to the combat in the room of their companions who have just been slain in their sight."

(b) "which are baptized" Rom 6:3,4 (*) "for the dead" "in the place of" Verse 30. And why stand we in jeopardy. Why do we constantly risk our lives, and encounter danger of every kind. This refers particularly to Paul himself and the other apostles, who were constantly exposed to peril by land or by sea in the arduous work of making known the gospel. The argument here is plain. It is, that such efforts would be vain, useless, foolish, unless there was to be a glorious resurrection. They had no other object in encountering these dangers than to make known the truths connected with that glorious future state; and if there were no such future state, it would be wise for them to avoid these dangers. "It would not be supposed that we would encounter these perils constantly, unless we were sustained with the hope of the resurrection, and unless we had evidence which convinced our own minds that there would be such a resurrection."

Every hour? Constantly. Comp. 2Cor 11:26. So numerous were their dangers, that they might be said to occur every hour. This was particularly the case in the instance to which he refers in Ephesus, 1Cor 15:32.

(a) "in jeopardy" 2Cor 11:26 (*) "jeopardy" "danger" Verse 31. I protest, νη. This is a particle of swearing, and denotes a strong asseveration. The subject was important; it deeply interested his feelings; and he makes in regard to it a strong protestation. Compare Jn 3:5. "I solemnly affirm, or declare."

By your rejoicing. Many Mss. here read "by our rejoicing," but the correct reading is, doubtless, that which is in the present Greek text, "by your rejoicing." The meaning of the phrase, which is admitted by all to be obscure, is probably, "I protest, or solemnly declare by the glorying or exultation which I have on your account; by all my ground of glorying in you; by all the confident boasting and expectation which I have of your salvation." He hoped for their salvation. He had laboured for that. He had boasted of it, and confidently believed that they would be saved. Regarding that as safe and certain, he says it was just as certain that he died daily on account of the hope and belief of the resurrection. "By our hopes and joys as Christians; by our dearest expectations and grounds of confidence, I swear, or solemnly declare, that I die daily." Men swear or affirm by their objects of dearest affection and desire; and the meaning here is, "So certainly as I confidently expect your salvation, and so certainly as we look to eternal life, so certain is it that I am constantly exposed to die, and suffer that which may be called a daily death?"

Which I have in Christ Jesus. The rejoicing, boasting, glorying in regard to you which I am permitted to cherish through the grace and favour of the Saviour. His boasting, or confident expectation in regard to the Corinthians, he enjoyed only by the mercy of the Lord Jesus, and he delighted to trace it to him.

I die daily. Comp. Rom 8:36. I endure so many sufferings and persecutions, that it may be said to be a daily dying. I am constantly in danger of my life; and my sufferings each day are equal to the pains of death. Probably Paul here referred particularly to the perils and trials which he then endured at Ephesus; and his object was to impress their minds with the firmness of his belief in the certainty of the resurrection, on account of which he suffered so much, and to show them that all their hopes rested also on this doctrine.

(1) "your" "Some read our" (+) "rejoicing" "My glorying on your account" (b) "rejoicing" Php 3:3 (c) "die daily" Rom 8:36 Verse 32. If after the manner of men. Marg., To speak after the manner of men. καταανθρωπον. There has been a great difference of opinion in regard to the meaning of these words. The following are some of the interpretations proposed:

(1.) If I have fought after the manner of men, who act only with reference to this life, and on the ordinary principles of human conduct, as men fought with wild beasts in the amphitheatre.

(2.) Or if, humanly speaking, or speaking after the manner of men, I have fought, referring to the fact that he had contended with men who should be regarded as wild beasts.

(3.) Or, that I may speak of myself as men speak, that I may freely record the events of my life, and speak of what has occurred.

(4.) Or, I have fought with wild beasts as far as it was possible for man to do it while life survived.

(5.) Or, as much as was in the power of man, who had destined me to this; if, so far as depended on man's will, I fought, supposing that the infuriated multitude demanded that I should be thus punished. So Chrysostom understands it.

(6.) Or, that Paul actually fought with wild beasts at Ephesus.

(7.) Others regard this as a supposable case; on the supposition that I had fought with wild beasts at Ephesus. Amidst this variety of interpretation, it is not easy to determine the true sense of this difficult passage. The following thoughts, however, may perhaps make it clear:

(1.) Paul refers to some real occurrence at Ephesus. This is manifest from the whole passage. It is not a supposable case.

(2.) It was some one case when his life was endangered, and when it was regarded as remarkable that he escaped and survived. Comp. 2Cor 1:8-10.

(3.) It was common among the Romans, and the ancients generally, to expose criminals to fight with wild beasts in the amphitheatre for the amusement of the populace. In such cases it was but another form of dooming them to certain death, since there was no human possibility of escape. See Adams' Rom. Ant., p. 344. That this custom prevailed at the East, is apparent from the following extract from Rosenmuller; and there is no improbability in the supposition that Paul was exposed to this:-- "The barbarous custom of making men combat with wild beasts

has prevailed in the East down to the most modern times.

Jurgen Andersen, who visited the states of the great mogul

in 1646, gives an account in his Travels of such a combat

with animals, which he witnessed at Agra, the residence

of the great mogul. His description affords a lively image

of those bloody spectacles in which ancient Rome took so

much pleasure, and to which the above words of the apostle

refer. Alamardan-chan, the governor of Cashmire, who sat

among the chans, stood up, and exclaimed, 'It is the will

and desire of the great mogul, Schah Choram, that if there

be any valiant heroes who will show their bravery by

combating with wild beasts, armed with shield and sword,

let them come forward; if they conquer, the mogul will

load them with great favour, and clothe their countenance

with gladness.' Upon this three persons advanced, and

offered to undertake the combat. Alamardan-chan again

cried aloud, 'None should have any other weapon than a

shield and a sword; and whosoever has any breast-plate

under his clothes should lay it aside, and fight honourably.

Hereupon a powerful lion was let into the garden, and one

of the three men above mentioned advanced against him;

the lion, on seeing his enemy, ran violently up to him; the

man, however, defended himself bravely, and kept off the

lion for a good while, till his arms grew tired; the lion

then seized the shield with one paw, and with the other

his antagonist's right arm, so that he was not able to use

his weapon; the latter, seeing his life in danger, took with

his left hand his Indian dagger, which he had sticking in

his girdle, and thrust it as far as possible into the lion's

mouth; the lion then let him go; the man, however, was not

idle, but cut the lion almost through with one stroke, and

after that entirely to pieces. Upon this victory the common

people began to shout, and call out, 'Thank God, he has

conquered.' But the mogul said, smiling, to this conqueror,

'Thou art a brave warrior, and hast fought admirably. But

did I not command to fight honourably only with shield and

sword? But, like a thief, thou hast stolen the life of the

lion with thy dagger.' And immediately he ordered two men to

rip up his belly, and to place him upon an elephant, and, as

an example to others, to lead him about, which was done on

the spot. Soon after a tiger was set loose; against which a

tall, powerful man advanced with an air of defiance, as if

he would cut the tiger up. The tiger, however, was far too

sagacious and active; for, in the first attack, he seized

the combatant by the neck, tore his throat, and then his

whole body in pieces. This enraged another good fellow,

but little, and of mean appearance, from whom one would not

have expected it: he rushed forward like one mad, and the

tiger on his part undauntedly flew at his enemy; but the man

at the first attack cut off his two fore paws, so that he fell,

and the man cut his body to pieces. Upon this the king cried,

'What is your name?' He answered, 'My name is Geyby.' Soon after

one of the king's servants came and brought him a piece of

gold brocade, and said, 'Geyby, receive the robe of honour

with which the mogul presents you.' He took the garment with

great reverence, kissed it three times, pressing it each time

to his eyes and breast, then held it up, and in silence put

up a prayer for the health of the mogul; and when he

concluded it he cried, "May God let him become as great as

Tamerlane, from whom he is descended. May he live seven

hundred years, and his house continue to eternity!

Upon this he was summoned by a chamberlain to go from the

garden up to the king; and when he came to the entrance, he

was received by two chans, who conducted him between them to

kiss the mogul's feet. And when he was going to retire, the

king said to him, 'Praised be thou, Geyby-chan, for thy

valiant deeds, and this name shalt thou keep to eternity.

I am your gracious master, and thou art my slave.'"

--Bush's Illustrations.

(4.) It is the most natural interpretation to suppose that Paul, on some occasion, had such a contest with a wild beast at Ephesus. It is that which would occur to the great mass of the readers of the New Testament as the obvious meaning of the passage.

(5.) The state of things in Ephesus when Paul was there, (Acts 19), was such as to make it nowise improbable that he would be subjected to such a trial.

(6.) It is no objection to this supposition that Luke has not recorded this occurrence in the Acts of the Apostles. No conclusion adverse to this supposition can be drawn from the mere silence of the historian. Mere silence is not a contradiction. There is no reason to suppose that Luke designed to record all the perils which Paul endured. Indeed, we know from 2Cor 11:24-27, that there must have been many dangers which Paul encountered which are not referred to by Luke. It must have happened, also, that many important events must have taken place during Paul's abode at Ephesus which are not recorded by Luke, Acts 19. Nor is it any objection to this supposition that Paul does not, in 2Cor 11:24-27 mention particularly this contest with a wild beast at Ephesus. His statement there is general. He does not descend into particulars. Yet, in 2Cor 11:23, he says that he was "in deaths oft" --a statement which is in accordance with the supposition that in Ephesus he may have been exposed to death in some cruel manner.

(7.) The phrase καταανθρωπον (as a man) may mean, that to human appearance, or so far as man was concerned, had it not been for some Divine interposition, he would have been a prey to the wild beasts. Had not God interposed and kept him from harm, as in the case of the viper at Melita, (Acts 28:5,)he would have been put to death. He was sentenced to this; was thrown to the wild beast; had every human prospect of dying; it was done on account of his religion; and, but for the interposition of God, he would have died. This I take to be the fair and obvious meaning of this passage, demanded alike by the language which is used, and by the tenor of the argument in which it is found.

What advantageth it me? What benefit shall I have? Why should I risk my life in this manner? 1Cor 15:19.

Let us eat and drink. These words are taken from Isa 22:13. In their original application they refer to the Jews when besieged by Sennacherib and the army of the Assyrians. The prophet says, that instead of weeping, and fasting, and humiliation, as became them in such circumstances, they had given themselves up to feasting and revelry, and that their language was, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die;" that is, there is no use in offering resistance, or in calling upon God. We must die; and we may as well enjoy life as long as it lasts, and give ourselves up to unrestrained indulgence. Paul does not quote these words as having any original reference to the subject of the resurrection, but as language appropriately expressing the idea, that if there is no future state; if no resurrection of the dead; if no happy result of toils and sufferings in the future world, it is vain and foolish to subject ourselves to trials and privations here. We should rather make the most of this life; enjoy all the comfort we can; and make pleasure our chief good, rather than look for happiness in a future state. This seems to be the language of the great mass of the world. They look to no future state. They have no prospect, no desire of heaven; and they, therefore, seek for happiness here, and give themselves up to unrestrained enjoyment in this life.

Tomorrow. Very soon. We have no security of life; and death is so near that it may be said we must die tomorrow.

We die. We must die. The idea here is, we must die, without the prospect of living again, unless the doctrine of the resurrection be true.

(2) "If after the manner" "to speak after" (d) "eat and drink" Eccl 2:24, Isa 22:13 Verse 33. Be not deceived. By your false teachers, and by their smooth and plausible arguments. This is an exhortation. He had thus far been engaged in an argument on the subject. He now entreats them to beware lest they be deceived--a danger to which they were very liable from their circumstances. There was, doubtless, much that was plausible in the objections to the doctrine of the resurrection; there was much subtilty and art in their teachers, who denied this doctrine; perhaps there was something in the character of their own minds, accustomed to subtle and abstruse inquiry rather than to an examination of simple facts, that exposed them to this danger.

Evil communications. The word rendered "communications" means, properly, a being together; companionship; close intercourse; converse. It refers not to discourse only, but to intercourse, or companionship. Paul quotes these words from Menander, (in Sentent. Comicor. Gr. p. 248, ed. Steph.,) a Greek poet. He thus shows that he was, in some degree at least, familiar with the Greek writers. Acts 17:28. Menander was a celebrated comic poet of Athens, educated under Theophrastus. His writings were replete with elegance, refined wit, and judicious observations. Of one hundred and eight comedies which he wrote, nothing remains but a few fragments. He is said to have drowned himself, in the fifty-second year of his age, B. C. 293, because the compositions of his rival, Philemon, obtained more applause than his own. Paul quoted this sentiment from a Greek poet, perhaps, because it might be supposed to have weight with the Greeks. It was a sentiment of one of their own writers, and here was an occasion in which it was exactly applicable. It is implied in this, that there were some persons who were endeavouring to corrupt their minds from the simplicity of the gospel. The sentiment of the passage is, that the intercourse of evil-minded men, or that the close friendship and conversation of those who hold erroneous opinions, or who are impure in their lives, tends to corrupt the morals, the heart, the sentiments of others. The particular thing to which Paul here applies it, is the subject of the resurrection. Such intercourse would tend to corrupt the simplicity of their faith, and pervert their views of the truth of the gospel, and thus corrupt their lives. It is always true that such intercourse has a pernicious effect on the mind and the heart. It is done,

(1.) by their direct effort to corrupt the opinions, and to lead others into sin.

(2.) By the secret, silent influence of their words, and conversation, and example. We have less horror at vice by becoming familiar with it; we look with less alarm on error when we hear it often expressed; we become less watchful and cautious when we are constantly with the gay, the worldly, the unprincipled, and the vicious. Hence Christ sought that there should be a pure society, and that his people should principally seek the friendship, and conversation of each other, and withdraw from the world. It is in the way that Paul here refers to, that Christians embrace false doctrines; that they lose their spirituality, love of prayer, fervour of piety, and devotion to God. It is in this way that the simple are beguiled, the young corrupted, and that vice, and crime, and infidelity spread over the world.

(a) "communications" 1Cor 5:6 Verse 34. Awake to righteousness. Rom 13:11. The word here translated "awake" denotes, properly, to awake up from a deep sleep or torpor; and is usually applied to those who awake, or become sober after drunkenness. The phrase "to righteousness"--δικαιως may mean either "rouse to the ways of righteousness, to a holy life, to sound doctrine," etc., or it may mean "as it is right and just that you should be." Probably the latter is the correct idea, and then the sense will be, "Arouse from stupidity on this subject; awake from your conscious security; be alarmed, as it is right and proper that you should be, for you are surrounded by dangers, and by those who would lead you into error and vice; rouse from such wild and delusive opinions as these persons have, and exercise a constant vigilance as becomes those who are the friends of God and the expectants of a blessed resurrection."

And sin not. Do not err; do not depart from the truth and from holiness; do not embrace a doctrine which is not only erroneous, but the tendency of which is to lead into sin. It is implied here, that, if they suffered themselves to embrace a doctrine which was a denial of the resurrection, the effect would be that they would fall into sin; or that a denial of that doctrine led to a life of self-indulgence and transgression. This truth is everywhere seen; and against this, effect Paul sought to guard them. He did not regard the denial of the doctrine of the resurrection as a harmless speculation, but as leading to most dangerous consequences in regard to their manner of life or their conduct.

For some have not. Some among you. You are surrounded by strangers to God; you have those among you who would lead you into error and sin.

I speak this to your shame. To your shame as a church; because you have had abundant opportunities to know the truth, and because it is a subject of deep disgrace that there are any in your bosom who deny the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, and who are strangers to the grace of God.

(b) "to righteousness" Rom 13:11, Eph 5:14 (c) "speak this" 1Cor 6:5