Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Corinthians 15:39 - 15:41
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Co_15:39-41. In order to make it conceivable that the same body need not come forth again, further reference is now made to the manifold diversity of organic forms in nature; so also faith in the resurrection cannot be bound up with the assumption of the sameness of the present and the future bodily organism. Very diverse are, namely: (1) the kinds of animal flesh (1Co_15:39); (2) the heavenly and earthly bodies (1Co_15:40); and (3) the lustre of the sun, of the moon, and of the stars (1Co_15:41).
σὰρξ κτηνῶν ] flesh of cattle, i.e. not quadrupedum generally (so de Wette and Osiander, following older interpreters), but also not simply jumentorum (van Hengel), but pecorum (Vulgate), which are kept for household use and for burden-bearing; Plato, Crit. p. 109 B; Herod. ii. 41; Xen. Anab. iii. 1. 19, 1Co_4:7; 1Co_4:17; Luk_10:34; Act_23:24.
σώματα ἐπουράνια ] heavenly bodies, i.e. bodies to be found in heaven. Comp. on Joh_3:12; Php_2:10. The bodies of the angels are meant by this (Mat_22:30; Luk_20:36; Phil. l.c.). So, too, de Wette.[73] Were we to understand by these words, as is usually done (so, among others, Hofmann; Hahn, Theol. d. N. Test. I. p. 265; Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 66; Philippi, Glaubensl. II. p. 292 f.), the heavenly bodies (sun, moon, and stars), we should be attributing to the apostle either our modern use of language, or the non-biblical mode of regarding the stars as living beings (see Galen, de usu part. 17 in Wetstein[74]), which is not to be proved even from Job_38:7. The same holds in opposition to Billroth, who understands the words as meaning heavenly organisms generally and indefinitely, from which sun, moon, and stars are then named by way of example. Sun, moon, and stars are not comprehended at all under σώματα ἐπουρ ., and are first adduced in 1Co_15:41 as a third analogue, and that simply in reference to their manifold δόξα . The whole connection requires that ΣΏΜΑΤΑ should be bodies as actual organs of life, not inorganic things and materials; as, for instance, stones (Lucian, vitt. auct. 25), water (Stob. fl. app. ii. 3), and material things generally (Plato, Polit. p. 288 D) are designated in Greek writers—not, however, in the New Testament—by σῶμα . Had Paul meant heavenly bodies in the modern sense, he would in that case, by describing them as bodies, have committed a μετάβασις εἰς ἄλλο γένος ; whereas, on the contrary, the bodies of the angels, especially when we consider the similarity of those who are raised up to the angels, which was taught by Jesus Himself, were essentially included as relevant to the subject in the list of the diversities of bodily organization here enumerated (in opposition to Hofmann’s objection). He then, 1Co_15:41, brings forward in addition the heavenly bodies only in respect of the diversity—not of their bodies, but—of the lustre of their light.
σώματα ἐπίγεια ] bodies to be found on earth, that is, the bodies of men and beasts.
Both kinds of bodies, the heavenly and earthly, are of different sorts of peculiar glory,—the former encompassed with a heavenly radiancy (Mat_28:3; Act_12:7, al.), the latter manifesting strength, grace, beauty, skilful construction, and the like in their outward appearance. Notice that in 1Co_15:40 ἑτέρα is used, because the subjects are of specifically different kinds and qualities. It is otherwise in 1Co_15:41, comp. 1Co_15:39.—1Co_15:41. Sun-lustre is one thing, and moon-lustre another, and lustre of stars another (i.e. another than solar and lunar lustre). Paul uses, however, ἀστέρων , not ἈΣΤΈΡΟς , because the stars too among themselves have not one and the same lustre; hence he adds by way of explanation: for star differs from star in lustre. Διαφέρει is thus simply differt (Vulgate), not excellit (Mat_6:26; Mat_10:31; Mat_12:12), which the context does not suggest. Regarding ἐν with ΔΙΑΦΈΡΕΙ , comp. Plato, Pol. viii. p. 568 A; Dem. 291, 17; Bremi, ad Isocr. I. p. 169. The accusative or dative of more precise definition is more usual (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 394). The design of 1Co_15:4 is not to allude to the different degrees of glory of the bodies of the saints (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theodoret, Calovius, Estius, al.), which is neither indicated in what precedes nor adverted to in the application 1Co_15:42 ff., and hence has no foundation in the context; but Calvin rightly remarks: “Non disputat, qualis futura sit conditionis differentia inter sanctos post resurrectionem, sed quid nunc different corpora nostra ab iis, quae olim recipiemus … ac si diceret: nihil in resurrectione futurum doceo, quod non subjectum sit jam omnium oculis.” Comp. also Krauss.
Generally, let us beware of forcing upon the individual points in 1Co_15:39-41 different individual references also,[75] contrary to the application which the apostle himself makes in 1Co_15:42-44.
[73] Comp. also Kurtz, Bibel u. Astron. p. 157; Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p.72f.
[74] Chrysostom and Theophylact (comp. also Theodoret) go entirely astray, supposing that σώμ . ἐπουρ . denotes the pious, and σώμ . ἐπίγεια the godless, in spite of the δόξα which is attributed to both.
[75] Tertullian, de resurr. 52, may serve as a warning; he says on ver. 39: “Alia caro hominis, i.e. servi Dei; alia jumenti, i.e. ethnici; alia volucrum, i.e. martyrum; alia piscium, i.e. quibus aqua baptismatis sufficit.” On ver. 41, again: “alia solis gloria, i.e. Christi; alia lunae, i.e. ecclesiae; et alia stellarum, i.e. seminis Abrahae.”