Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 5:3 - 5:3
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Co_5:3. After 2Co_5:2 a comma only is to be placed, for 2Co_5:3 contains a supplementary definition to what precedes (comp. Hartung, Partikell. I. pp. 391, 395 f.), inasmuch as the presupposition is stated under which the ἐπενδύσασθαι ἐπιποθοῦμεν takes place: in the presupposition, namely, that we shall be found also clothed, not naked, i.e. that we shall be met with at the Parousia really clothed with a body, and not bodiless. The apostle’s view is that, while Christ at the Parousia descends from heaven, the Christians already dead first rise, then those still alive are transformed, whereupon both are then caught away into the higher region of the air ( εἰς ἀέρα ) to meet the Lord, so that they thus at their meeting with the Lord shall be found not bodiless ( οὐ γυμνοί ), but clothed with a corporeal covering[211] ( ἐνδυσάμενοι ). See 1Th_4:16-17, and Lünemann’s note thereon. This belief is here laid down as certainty by εἴγε κ . τ . λ ., and as such it conditions and justifies the longing desire expressed in 2Co_5:2, which, on the contrary, would be vain and empty dreaming, if that belief were erroneous, i.e. if we at the Parousia should be found as mere spirits without corporeality; so that thus those still living, instead of being transformed, would have to die, in order to appear as spirits before the descending Christ. We cannot fail to see in the words an incidental reference to those of the Corinthians who denied the resurrection, and without the thought of them Paul would have had no occasion for adding 2Co_5:3; but the reference is such, as takes for granted that the deniers are set aside and the denied fact is certain. As the whole of this explanation is quite in keeping with the context and the conceptions of the apostle, so is it with the words, regarding which, however, it is to be observed that the certainty of what is posited by εἴγε , if namely, is not implied in this particle by itself (in opposition to Hermann’s canon, ad Viger. p. 834), but in the connection of the conception and discourse. Comp. on Eph_3:2, Gal_3:4, and Baeumlein, Partik. p. 64 f. On καί , also, in the sense of really, see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 132; and on εἴ γε καί , comp. Xen. Mem. iii. 6. 13. The participle ἐνδυσάμενοι refers, however, to the act of clothing previous to the εὑρεθησόμεθα , so that the aorist is quite in its right place (in opposition to Hofmann’s objection, that the perfect is required); and finally, the asyndeton ἐνδυσάμ ., οὐ γυμνοί makes the contrasts come into more vivid prominence, like γάλα , οὐ βρῶμα , 1Co_3:2; Rom_2:29; 1Th_2:17, and often; comp. 2Co_5:7. See Kühner, II. p. 461; Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 31; Hermann, ad Viger. p. 887.
The most current exposition on the part of others is: “Si nos iste dies deprehendet cum corpore, non exutos a corpore, si erimus inter mutandos, non inter mortuos,” Grotius. So, following Tertullian (de Resurr. 41, though he reads ἐκδυσ .), Cajetanus, Castalio, Estius, Wolf, Bengel, Mosheim, Emmerling, Schrader, Rinck, and others, and, in the main, Billroth also, who, however, decides in favour of the reading εἴπερ , and deletes the comma after ἐνδυσάμ .: “which (i.e. the being clothed upon) takes place, if we shall be found (on the day of the Lord) otherwise than already once clothed (with the earthly body), not naked (like the souls of the dead),” so that ἐνδυσάμ . οὐ γυμνοὶ εὑρ . together would be: utpote jam semel induti non nudi inveniemur. Against that common explanation, which J. Müller, von der Sünde, II. p. 422 f., ed. 5, also follows with the reading εἴπερ , the aorist participle is decisive (it must have been ἐνδεδυμένοι ).[212] Billroth, however, quite arbitrarily imports the already once, and, what could be more unnecessary, nay, vapid, than to give a reason for οὐ γυμνοί by means of ἐνδυσάμ . in the assumed sense: since we indeed have already once received a body! which would mean nothing else than: since we indeed are not born bodiless. Against Billroth, besides, see Reiche, p. 357 f. According to Fritzsche, Diss. I. p. 55 ff., ἐνδυσάμ . is held to be in essential meaning equivalent to ἐπενδυσάμ .: “Superinduere (immortale corpus vivi ad nos recipere) volumus, quandoquidem (quod certo scimus et satis constat, εἴγε ) etiam superinduti (immortali corpore) non nudi sc. hoc immortali corpore, sumus futuri h. e. quandoquidem vel sic ad regni Mess. ἀφθαρσίαν perveniemus.” But while the ἐπενδυσάμενοι may be included as a species among the ἐνδυσάμενοι , as opposed to the γυμνοί , they cannot be meant exclusively. Besides, the thought: “since we too clothed upon will not be without the immortal body,” would be without logical import, because the superinduere is just the assumption of the future body, with which we attain to the ἀφθαρσία of the Messianic kingdom. According to de Wette, Paul says: “if, namely, also (in reality) clothed, we shall be found not naked (bodiless), i.e. as we then certainly presuppose that that heavenly habitation will be also a body.” So, in the main, Lechler, Apost. u. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 138 f., Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, I. p. 118, the latter taking εἴγε καί as although indeed. But the whole explanation is absurd, since the ἔνδυσις could not at all be conceived as at the same time its opposite, as γυμνότης ; and had Paul wished to lay emphasis on the fact that the clothing would be none other than with a body (which, however, was quite obvious of itself), he must have used not the simple γυμνοί (not the simple opposite of ἐνδυσάμ .), but along with it the more precise definition with which he was concerned, something, therefore, like οὐ σώματος γυμνοί (Plato, Crat. p. 403 B, and the passages in Wetstein and Loesner). According to Delitzsch, l.c. p. 436, εἰ καί is taken as although, and ἐνδυσάμ . as contrast of ἐπενδυσάμ ., so that there results as the meaning: though, indeed, we too, having acquired the heavenly body by means of clothing (not clothing over), shall be found not naked. As if this were not quite obvious of itself! When clothed, one certainly is not naked! no matter whether we have drawn the robe on or o2Co 5:Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and Oecumenius take ἐνδυσάμ . as equivalent to σῶμα ἄφθαρτον λαβόντες , but γυμνοί as equivalent to γυμνοὶ δόξης , for the resurrection is common to all, but not the δόξα . So also Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 392 f.: “We long after being clothed upon, which event, however, is desirable for us only under the condition or presupposition that we, though clothed, shall not be found naked in another sense,” namely, denuded of the garland which we should have gained. Here also we may place Olshausen (comp. Pelagius, Anselm, Calvin, Calovius, and others), who takes οὐ γυμνοί as epexegetical of ἐνδυσάμ ., and interprets the two thus: if we, namely, are found also clothed with the robe of righteousness, not denuded of it. Comp. also Osiander, who thinks of the spiritual ornament of justification and sanctification; further, Hofmann on the passage and in his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 473, who, putting a comma after εἴγε (“if we, namely, in consequence of the fact that we also have put on, shall be found not naked”), understands ἐνδυσάμενοι as a designation of the Christian status (the having put on Christ), which one must have in order not to stand forth naked and, therefore, unfitted for being clothed o2Co 5:But where in the text is there any suggestion of a garland, a robe, an ornament of righteousness, a putting on of Christ (Gal_3:27; Rom_13:14), or of the Christian status (1Th_5:8; Eph_6:14; Eph_4:24; Col_3:10), or anything else, which does not mean simply the clothing with the future body? Olshausen, indeed, is of opinion that there lies in καί a hint of a transition to another figure; but without reason, as is at once shown by what follows; and with equal justice any change in the figure at our pleasure might be admitted! This also in opposition to Ewald’s interpretation: “if we at least being also clothed (after we have had ourselves clothed, i.e. raised again) be found not naked, namely, guilty, like Adam and Eve, Gen_3:11.” This would point to the resurrection of the wicked, Rev_20:12-15; if we belonged to these, we should certainly not have the putting on of glorification to hope for. But such a reference was just as remote from the mind of the apostle, who is speaking of himself and those like him, as the idea of Adam and Eve, of whom Beza also thinks in γυμνοί , must, in the absence of more precise indication, have remained utterly remote from the mind of the reader.
[211] That is, with the new body, no longer with the old. See, in opposition to Klöpper, Hofmann, p. 130.
[212] Even Müller acknowledges that the aorist is anomalous, but makes an irrelevant appeal to Eph_6:14; 1Th_5:8. In both passages, in fact, the having put on is longed for, and the aorist is therefore quite in order.
REMARK.
Whether the reading ἐχδυσ . or ἐνδυσ . be adopted, it is not to be explained of an interim body between death and resurrection (Flatt, p. 69; Schneckenburger, l.c. p. 130; Schott; Auberlen in the Stud. u. Krit. 1852, p. 709; Martensen, § 276; Nitzsch, Göschel, Rinck, and others, including Reiche,[213] l.c.), of which conception there is no trace in the New Testament;[214] but rather, since γυμνοί can only refer to the lack of a body: if we, namely, even in the case that we shall be unclothed (shall have died before the Parousia), shall be found not naked (bodiless), in which the idea would be implied: assuming, namely, that we in every case, even in the event of our having died before the Parousia, will not appear before Christ without a body; hence the wish of attaining the new body without previous death is all the better founded ( ἐπενδύσασθαι ). Similarly Rückert. Kling (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 511) takes it inaccurately: “although we, even if an unclothing has ensued, will not be found bare,” by which Paul is held to say: “even if the severing process of death has ensued, yet the believers will not appear bodiless on the day of the Lord, since God gives them the resurrection-body.”[215] The error of this view lies in although. No doubt Kling, with Lachmann, reads εἴπερ . But even this never means quamvis (not even in 1Co_8:5), and the Homeric use of εἴπερ in the sense: if also nevertheless, if even ever so much (Odyss. i. 167; Il. i. 81, and Nägelsbach’s note thereon, p. 43, ed. 3), especially with a negative apodosis (see Hartung, I. p. 339; Kühner, II. p. 562), passed neither into the Attic writers nor into the N. T.
[213] Reiche, p 364: “Quo certior nobis est gloriosae immortalitatis spes ( γάρ , c. 2), eo impensiore quidem desiderio, ut morte non intercedente propediem ad summum beatitudinis fastigium evehamur, flagramus; attamen vero etiam corpore hoc per mortem exuti sentiendi agendique instrumento non carebimus.” εἴγε καί is, in his view, concessive, moderating the desire to assume the heavenly body without previously dying ( ἐπενδύσασθαι , ver. 2): “Si igitur Deus votis (ver. 2) non annuerit, animum haud despondemus anxiive futura anhelamus, persuasi scilicet, et post mortem illico mentem nostram immortalem in statum beatissimum evectum iri,” etc. It is true that Reiche himself declares against the view that Paul here speaks of a body intermediate between death and resurrection; but his own view amounts to much the same thing, since Paul, according to it, is supposed to grant that we, unclothed of the earthly body by death, will yet “post mortem illico” be found not naked,
[214] The manner also in which the origin of this corporeality has been conceived, namely, as the soul’s self-embodiment by putting on the elements of the higher world (see, especially, Güder, Ersch. Chr. unt. d. Todten, p. 336, also West. in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 280), has nowhere in Scripture any basis whatever. See, in opposition to it, Delitzsch, p. 438; Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u. Werk, III. 2, p. 436, who, however (p. 74 f.), for his part, answers in the affirmative the question, whether we are to think of “a change of clothing and clothing over of the new man out of the transfigured corporeality of the Lord, whose communion is the blessed bread and the blessed cup.” In any case, γυμνοί the negation of corporeality. But the question remains untouched (comp. the cautious remarks of J. Müller, p. 425), what organ of its activity the soul retains in death, when it is divested of the body. On this point we have no instruction in Scripture, and conjectures (like Weisse’s conception of the nerve-spirit) lead to nothing. The opinion that the Lord’s Supper has a transfiguring power over the body goes partly against Scripture (because it presupposes the participation of the transfigured body of Christ) and partly beyond Scripture (because the latter contains nothing regarding any power of the Lord’s Supper over the body). Ultra quod scriptum est is also the conception in Delitzsch of the body-like appearance of the bodiless soul itself, or of an outline of the same resembling in form its true inward state. Such theories bring us into the realm of phantasmagoric hypotheses.
[215] So in the main did Chrysostom interpret the reading ἐκδυσάμινοι (for so we are to read in the explanation first quoted by him, comp. Matthaei in loc.): κἂν ἀποθώμεθα τὸ σῶμα , οὐ χωρὶς σώματος ἐκεῖ παραστησόμεθα , ἀλλὰ καὶ μετὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἀφθάρτου γενομένου .