Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Corinthians 15:42 - 15:44
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Co_15:42-44. Application of the passage from 1Co_15:36 ( σπείρεται ) on to 1Co_15:41.
οὕτω καὶ ἡ ἀνάστασις τ . νεκρ .] sc. ἐστι . So does it hold also with the resurrection of the dead, in so far, namely, as the resurrection-body will be quite otherwise constituted than the present body.[76]
It is sown in corruption, etc. What is sown and raised up, is self-evident, and is also distinctly said in 1Co_15:44, on occasion being given by the adjectival form of expression, into which the discourse there passes.
On σπείρεται , the remark of Grotius is sufficient: “cum posset dicere sepelitur, maluit dicere seritur, ut magis insisteret similitudini supra sumtae de grano.” The apostle falls back on the image of the matter already familiar to the readers, because it must have by this time become clear to them in general from this image, that a reproduction of the present body at the resurrection was not to be thought of. The fact, again, that the image of sowing had already gone before in this sense,—in the sense of interment,—excludes as contrary to the text, not only van Hengel’s interpretation, according to which σπείρεται is held to apply to generation and man is to be conceived as the subject, but also Hofmann’s view, that the sowing is the giving up of the body to death, without reference to the point whether it be laid in the earth or not. The sowing is man’s act, but the ἐγείρεται God’s act, quite corresponding to the antithesis cf σύ , 1Co_15:36, and ὁ δὲ θεός , 1Co_15:38.
ἐν φθορᾷ ] in corruption, i.e. in the condition of decay, is the body when it is buried.[77] Of a wholly different nature, however, will be the new body which raises itself at the resurrection-summons (1Co_15:52 f.) out of the buried one (as the plant out of the seed-corn); it is raised in the condition of incorruptibility. Comp. 1Co_15:50; 1Co_15:52.
ἐν ἀτιμίᾳ ] in the condition of dishonour. Chrysostom ( τί γὰρ εἰδεχθέστερον νεκροῦ διαῤῥυέντος ;), Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Beza, Grotius, al., including Billroth, have rightly understood this of the foeditas cadaveris; for σπείρεται represents the act of burial. Erasmus, Calvin, Vorstius, Estius, Rosenmüller, al., including Flatt (comp. Rückert), hold that it refers to the “ante mortem miseriis et foeditatibus obnoxium esse,” Estius. So also de Wette (comp. Osiander and Hofmann) in reference to all the three points, which, according to these expositors, are meant to designate the nature of the living body as regards its organization, or at least to include it (comp. Maier) in their scope. But this mode of conception, according to which the definition of state characterizes the earthly body generally according to its nature, not specially according to the condition in which it is at its interment, comes in only at the fourth point with σῶμα ψυχικόν in virtue of the change in the form of expression which is adopted on that very account. From the way in which Paul has expressed the first three points, he desires to state in what condition that which is being sown is at its sowing; in what condition, therefore, the body to be buried is, when it is being buried. This, too, in opposition to Ewald’s view: “even the best Christians move now in corruption, in outward dishonour before the world,” et.
ἐν δόξῃ ] refers to the state of outward glory, which will be peculiar to the resurrection-bodies; 1Co_15:40. It is the σύμμορφον εἶναι τῷ σώματι τῆς δόξης Χριστοῦ , Php_3:21.
ἘΝ ἈΣΘΕΝΕΊᾼ ] not: “variis morbis et periculis obnoxium,” Rosenmüller and others, comp. Rückert (weakliness); for it refers to the already dead body ( σπείρεται ), but: in the condition of powerlessness, inasmuch as all ability, all ἰσχύς (Soph. Oed. Col. 616), all σθένος of the limbs (Pindar, Nem. v. 72, x. 90) has vanished from the dead body. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theodoret, Theophylact, al., narrow the reference too much in an arbitrary way, applying it simply to the inability to withstand corruption. Ἐν ἀσθ . is not a superfluous (de Wette), but a characteristic mark which specifically distinguishes the dead from the living bod.
ἐν δυνάμει ] in the condition, of strength: the resurrection body will be endowed with fulness of strength for life and activity. What Grotius adds: “cum sensibus multis, quos nunc non intelligimus,” is perhaps true in itself, but is not conveyed in ἐν δυνάμει .
Instead of adducing one by one further qualities of the body as buried, with their opposites in the resurrection-body, Paul sums up by naming in addition that which conditions those other qualities, the specific fundamental nature of the present body which is buried, and of the future one which is raised: σπείρεται σῶμα ψυχικὸν , ἐγείρ . σ . πνευματικόν , i.e. there is sown a psychical body, etc. This is not opposed to the identity of the body, but the one which rises is quite differently qualified; there is buried a ψυχικόν , there rises a ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚΌΝ . That is the new ποιότης τοῦ σώματος in which the risen man comes (1Co_15:35); but the expression, which sets forth the difference as two subjects, is stronger and more significant than if we should take it with Hofmann: it is sown as a psychical body, etc.
The body which is buried is ψυχικόν , inasmuch as the ΨΥΧΉ , this power of the sensuous and perishable life (comp. on 1Co_2:14), was its life-principle and the determining element of its whole nature (consisting of flesh and blood, 1Co_15:50). The ΨΥΧΉ had in it, as Oecumenius and Theophylact say, ΤῸ ΚῦΡΟς Κ . ΤῊΝ ἩΓΕΜΟΝΊΑΝ . The resurrection-body, however, will be ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚΌΝ , i.e. not an ethereal body (Origen, comp. Chrysostom),[78] which the antithesis of ψυχικόν forbids; but a spiritual body, inasmuch as the πνεῦμα , the power of the supersensuous, eternal life (the true, imperishable ζωή ), in which the Holy Spirit carries on the work of regeneration and sanctification (Rom_8:16-17), will be its life-principle and the determining element of its whole nature. In the earthly body the ψυχή , not the πνεῦμα , is that which conditions its constitution and its qualities, so that it is framed as the organ of the ψυχή ;[79] in the resurrection-body the reverse is the case; the πνεῦμα , for whose life-activity it is the adequate organ, conditions its nature, and the ψυχή has ceased to be, as formerly, the ruling and determining element. We are not, however, on this account to assume, with Rückert, that Paul conceived the soul as not continuing to subsist for ever,—a conception which would do away with the essential completeness and thereby with the identity of the human being. On the contrary, he has conceived of the πνεῦμα in the risen bodies as the absolutely dominant element, to which the psychical powers and activities shall be completely subordinated. The whole predicates of the resurrection-body, contrasted with the properties of the present body, are united in the likeness to the angels, which Jesus affirms of the risen, Mat_22:30, Luk_20:36, and in their being fashioned like unto the glorified body of Christ, as is promised by Paul, 1Co_15:48-49; Php_3:21. How far the doctrine of Paul is exalted above the assertion by the Rabbins of the (quite crass) identity of the resurrection-body with the present one, may be seen from the citations in Wetstein on 1Co_15:36, and in Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. II. p. 938 f.
εἰ ἔστι σῶμα ψυχ ., ἔστι καὶ κ . τ . λ .] logical confirmation of the σῶμα πνευματ . just mentioned. It is to be shown, namely, that it is not an air-drawn fancy to speak of the future existence of a σῶμα πνευματικόν : If it is true that there is a psychical body, then there is also a spiritual body, then such a body cannot be a non-ens—according to the mutually conditioning relations of the antitheses. The emphasis lies on the twice-prefixed ἔστι , existit (comp. the Rabbinical àéú in Schoettgen, Hor. p. 670). The logical correctness of the sentence, again, depends upon the presupposition (1Co_15:42 f.) that the present and the future body stand in the relation of counterparts to each other. If, therefore, there exists a psychical body (and that is the present one), then a pneumatic body also must be no mere idea, but really existent (and that is the resurrection-body).
[76] It is to be observed that Paul, in his whole discussion regarding the nature of the future bodies, has in view only those of the first resurrection (see on ver. 23), leaving quite out of account the bodies of those who shall belong to the second resurrection, and consequently to the τέλος , ver. 24. He has in fact to do with believers, with future sharers in the resurrection of the righteous (comp. on Php_3:11), whose resurrection-hope was being assailed.
[77] Not as Hofmann would have it, in connection with his inappropriate interpretation of σπείρεται : up to the point, when it is given over to death.
[78] Or as Zeller in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 297, would have it: “a body composed of spirit,” the πνεῦμα being conceived as material. Comp. Holsten, zum Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 72: “out of heavenly light-material.”
[79] Luther’s gloss is: “which eats, drinks, sleeps, digests, grows larger and smaller, begets children, etc. Spiritual, which may do none of these things, and nevertheless is a true body alive from the spirit.”