Daniel 12:2

John 5:28-29

Verse 28. Marvel not. Do not wonder or be astonished at this.

The hour is coming. The time is approaching or will be.

All that are in the graves. All the dead, of every age and nation. They are described as in the graves. Though many have turned to their native dust and perished from human view, yet God sees them, and can regather their remains and raise them up to life. The phrase all that are in the graves does not prove that the same particles of matter will be raised up, but it is equivalent to saying all the dead. 1Cor 15:35-38.

Shall hear his voice. He will restore them to life, and command them to appear before him. This is a most sublime description, and this will be a wonderful display of almighty power. None but God can see all the dead, none but he could remould their frames, and none else could command them to return to life. Verse 29. Shall come forth. Shall come out of their graves. This was the language which he used when he raised up Lazarus, Jn 11:43,4.

They that have done good. That is, they who are righteous, or they who have by their good works shown that they were the friends of Christ. See Mt 25:34-36.

Resurrection of life. Religion is often called life, and everlasting life. Jn 5:24. In the resurrection the righteous will be raised up to the full enjoyment and perpetual security of that life. It is also called the resurrection of life, because there shall be no more death, Rev 21:4. The enjoyment of God himself and of his works; of the society of the angels and of the redeemed; freedom from sickness, and sin, and dying, will constitute the life of the just in the resurrection. The resurrection is also called the resurrection of the just (Lk 14:14), and the first resurrection, Rev 20:5,6.

The resurrection of damnation. The word damnation means the sentence passed on one by a judge--judgment or condemnation. The word, as we use it, applies only to the judgment pronounced by God on the wicked; but this is not its meaning always in the Bible. Here it has, however, that meaning. Those who have done evil will be raised up to be condemned or damned. This will be the object in raising them up--this the sole design. It is elsewhere said that they shall then be condemned to everlasting punishment (Mt 25:46), and that they shall be punished with everlasting destruction (2Thes 1:8,9); and it is said of the unjust that they are reserved unto the day of judgment to be punished, 2Pet 2:9. That this refers to the future judgment--to the resurrection then, and not to anything that takes place in this life-- is clear from the following considerations:

1st. Jesus had just spoken of what would be done in this life--of the power of the gospel, Jn 5:25. He adds here that something still more wonderful--something beyond this--would take place. All that are in the graves shall hear his voice.

2nd. He speaks of those who are in their graves, evidently referring to the dead. Sinners are sometimes said to be dead in sin. This is applied in the Scriptures only to those who are deceased.

3rd. The language used here of the righteous cannot be applied to anything in this life. When God converts men, it is not because they have been good.

4th. Nor is the language employed of the evil applicable to anything here. In what condition among men can it be said, with any appearance of sense, that they are brought forth from their graves to the resurrection of damnation? The doctrine of those Universalists who hold that all men will be saved immediately at death, therefore, cannot be true. This passage proves that at the day of judgment the wicked will be condemned. Let it be added that if then condemned they will be lost for ever. Thus (Mt 25:46) it is said to be everlasting punishment; 2Thes 1:8,9, it is called everlasting destruction. There is no account of redemption in hell--no Saviour, no Holy Spirit, no offer of mercy there.

1 Corinthians 15:12-27

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
Copyright information for Barnes