Chapter XV

The Hesurreotion of the Dead.

Ill trealltig tJiia subject the apostle first proraB tha fact of Christ’s resniTaction, vfl. 1 — 11. He thence dedaccs, first, the possihility, and then the certainty oftharesnrreetloQofhispeepla.vs, 12-84. Ha affarwiirds teaches the nature of tha reamreeljon, so far as to show that the doctrine is not Eahlo to the objections which bad been brought against it va. 35-58.

77ie Resurrection of Christ as securing the Hesurreotion of his Feople, vs. 1 — 34.

That cei-taia fiilse teachers in Corinth denied the resarrection of the dead is plain, not only fi-om the course of argument here adopted but from the explicit statement in v. 12. Who these persons were, and what were the grounds of their ohjectiona, can only be conjectured from the nature of the apostolic argument. The most common opinion is that the objectors were converted Saddacees. The only reason for this opinion is that the Sadducees denied the doctrine of the resun-ection, and that Paul, as appears from Acts 24, 6-9 and 2G, 6-8, had been before brought into collision with them on this subject. The objections to this view are of no great weight. It is said that such was the hostility of the Sadduoees to the gospel that it is not probable any of their number were among the converts to Christianity, The case of Paul himself proves that the bitterest enemies could, by the grace of God, be converted into fiiends. It is farther objected that Paul could not, in argmnent with Sadducees, mate the resurrection of Christ the basis of his proof. But he does not assume that fact as conceded, hut proves it by an array of the testimoBy by which it M-as supported. Others Bu|mose that the opponents of the doctrine were Epicureans. There is, however, no indication of their peculiar opinions in the chapter. In v. 32 Epicurean carelessness and mdulgence are represented as the consequence, not the cause, of the denial of the resurrection. Nothing more definite can be arrived at on this point than the conjecture that the false teachers in question were men of Grecian culture. In Acts 17, 32 it is said of the Athenians that “some mocked” when they heard Paul preach the doctrine of the resurrection. From the character of the objections answered in the latter part of the chapter, vs. 35-58, it is probable that the objections urged gainst the doctrine were founded on the assumption that a material organization was unsuited to the future state. It is not unlikely that oriental philosophy, which assumed that matter was the source and seat of evil, had produced an effect on the minds of these Corinthian sceptics as well as on the Chjistiana of Colosse, The decision of the question as to what particular class of persons the opponents of the doctrine of the resurrection belonged, happily Is of no importance in the interpretation of the apostle’s argument. As in 2 Tim. 2, 17. 18 he speaks of Hymeneus and Philetus as teaching that the resuiTcotion was passed already, it is probable that these eirorists in Corinth also refused to acknowledge any other than a spii-itual resurrection.

After remmding the Coiinthians that the doctrine of the resun-ection was a primary principle of the gospel, which he had preached to them, and on which their siivation depended, vs. 1-3, he proceeds to assert and prove the fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day. This event had been predicted in the Old Testament, Its actual occurrence is proved, 1. By Christ appearing after his resurrection, first to Peter and then to the twelve. 2. By his appearing to upward of five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom were still alive. 3. By a separate appearance to Jiunes. 4. And then again to all the apostles. 5. Finally by his appearance to Paul himself. There never was a historical event established on surer evidence than that of the resurrection of Christ, vs. 4-8. This fact, therefore, was included in the preaching of all the apostles, and in the faith of all Christians, v. 11, But if this be so, how can the doctrine of the resurrection be denied by any who pretend to “be Christians? To deny the roBUiTeetion of the dead ia to deny the resurrection of Christ; and to deny the resurrection of Christ, is to subvert the gospul, va. 13-14; and also to make the apostles felse witnesses, V. 15. If Christ be not risen, oar faith ia vain, we are yet in our sins, those dead in Christ are perished, and all the hopes of Christians are destroyed, vs. 16-19. Bat it’ Christ be risen, then his people will also rise, because he rose as a pledge of their resurrection. As Adam was the cause of death, so Christ is the cause of life; Adam secured the death of all who are in him, and Christ secures the life of all who are in him, vs. 20-22, Although the resurrection of Christ secures the resurrection of his people, the two events are not contemporaneous, Christ rose first, his people are to rise when he comes the second time. Then is to be the final conaummation, when Christ shall deliver up his providential kingdom as mediator to the Father, after all his enemies ai-s subdued, vs, 23. 24, It is necessary that Chiist’s dominion over the universe, to which he was exalted after his resurrection, should continue until his great work of subduing or restraining evil was accomplished. When that is done, then the Son {the Theanthropos, the Incarnate Logos), will be subject to the Father, and God as God, and not as Mediator, reign supreme, 25-28.

Besides the arguments already urged, there are two other considerations which prove the truth or importance of the doctrine of the resurrection. The firet is, “the baptism for the dead” (whatever that means) prevailing in Corinth, assumes the truth of the doctrine, v. 29. The other is, the intimate connection between this doctrine and that of a future state is such, that if the one be denied, the other cannot, in a Christian sense, be maintained. If there be no resuiTection, there is for Christians no hereafter, and they may act on the principle, “Let us eat and drink for to-morrow we die,” vs. 30-82, The apostle concludes this part of the suWect by wai-ning his readers agsunst the corrupting influence of evil associations. Whence it is probable that the denial of the doctrine had already produced the evil effects referred to among those who r ’

1. 2. Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the apel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by wliieh also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I have preached mito you, unless ye have believed in vain.

There is no connection between this and the preceding chapter. The pai-ticle 8^ rendered moreover, indicates the introduction of anew subject, J^alare unto (yvaipiu)), literally, I make known to you, aa though they had never heard it before. ‘Moreover, brethren, I proclaim to you the gospel.’ This interpretation ia more conaistent with the signification of the word, and more impressive than the rendering adopted by many, ‘I remind you.’ Comp. however, 12, 3. 2 Oor, 8, 1. Of this gospel Paul says, 1. That he had preached it. 2. They had received it, i. e. embraced it as true, 3. That they then professed it. They still stood firm in their adherence to the truth. It was not the Corinthians as a body, but only “some among them,” v. 12, who denied the doctiTne of the resarrection. 4. That by it they are saved. The present tense is used to espre either the certMnty of the event, or the idea that believers are in this life partakera of salvation. They are already saved. There is to them no condemnation. They are renewed and made partakers of spiritual life. Their salvation, however, ia conditioned on their perseverance. If they do not persevere, they will not oniy £al of the consummation of the work of salvation, but it becomes manifest that they never were justified or renewed. ‘Ye are saved («i KaTsere) iy ye hold fast.’ The word does not mean, if ye keep in memory. It simply means, if ye holdfast; whether that be by a physical holding fast with the hand, or a retaining in the memory, or a retainmg in fiiith, depends on the connection. Here it is evident that the condition of salvation is not retaining in the memory, bat persevering in the faith. ‘The gospel saves you,’ says the apostle, ‘if you hold fast the gospel which I preached unto you.’

The only difficulty in the passage relates to the words rtVc Xoyui, iitersuly, with what discourse / which in oar version is expressed by the word what. This may express the true sense. The idea is, ‘If you hold fast to the gospel a3 1 preached it to yon.’ The principal objection to this mterpretation ia the position of the words. The order in which they stand is, ‘With what discourse I preached unto you if ye hold fast.’ The interpretation just mentioned reverses this order. This clause is therefore by many connected with the first words of the chapter. ‘I bring to your knowledge, brethren,

the gospel whieli I preached «iito yon, which ye received, wherein ye stand, by which ye are saved, (I bring to your knowledge, I say,) how, qua ratione, I preaohed, 3’ ye hold iast.’ This, however, breaks the connection. It is, therefore, better to consider the words rtw AiJ^ as placed first for the sake of emphasis. ‘Yon are saved if you hold fest (the gospel) as I preached it to you.’ Vhless ye have believed in vain. The word (Jk, in vain, may mean either without cause. Gal. 2, 18, or without effe<a i. e. to no pni-pose, Gal. 3, 4. 4, 11. If the foi-mer, then Paul means to say, ‘Unless ye believed without evidence, i, e. had no ground for your Mth.’ If the latter, the meaning is, ‘Unls your faith is worthless.’ The clause may be connected with the preceding words, ‘If ye hold fast, which ye do, or will do, unless ye Tieheved without cause.’ The better connection is with the words ye are saved, &o. ‘Te are saved, if ye persevere, unless indeed feith is worthless.’ If, as the erronsts in Corinth taught, there is no resurrection, Paul says, v. 14, our faith is vain; it is an empty, woi”thles9 thing. So here he says, the gospel secures salvation, unless fiiith be of no account.

3. Por I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures:

Uor introdnoes the explanation of ’ what he had preached,’ I delivered unto you first of ali; first, not in reierence to time; nor^s( to the Corinthians, which would not be historicaliy true, as Paul did not preach first at Corinth; but iv vpw-Tovs means, among the first, or principal things. The death of Christ for our sins and his resurrection were therefore the great facts on which Paul insisted as the foundation of the

gispel. Which also I received,. e. by direct revelation from hrist himself. Comp. 11, 23. Gal. 1, 12. “I did not receive it (the gospel) from man, neither was I taught it; but by revelation of Jesus Christ.” The apostle, therefore, could speak with infallible confidence, both aa to what the gospel is and ag to its truth. That Christ died for our sins, i. e. as a saerifiee or propitiation for our sins. Comp. Rom, 3, 23-26. Some commentators remark that as v-n-ip oafyruav, for sin, cannot mean in the place of mt, therefore iittp ^(xuv, for us, cannot mean in our place. This remark, however, has no more force in reference to the Greek preposition, vn-tp, than it has in relatioTi to the English preposition, for. Whether the phrase, to die for any one, means to die for his benefit, or in his place, is detormined by the connection. It may mean either or both; and the same is true of the corresponding scriptural phrase.

According to the Scriptures, i. e. the fact that the Messiah was to die as a propitiation for sin had been revealed in the Old Testament, That the death of ChriBt as an atoning sacrifice was predicted by thp law and the prophets is the constant doctrine of the New Testament. Oar Lord reproved his disciples for not believing what the prophets had spoken on this subject, Lnke 24, 25. 26, Panl protested before Festus, that in preaching the gospel he had said “none other things than those which Moses and the prophets say should come; that Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles,” Acts 26, 22, 23. He assured the Romans that his gospel was “witnessed (to) by the law and the prophets,” Rom. 3, 21. The epistle to the Hebrews is an exposition of the whole Mosdo sei-vice as a prefiguration of the office and work of Christ. And the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah is the foundation of all the New Testament exlubitiona of a suffering and atoning Messiah. Paul and all other faithful ministers of the gospel, therefore, teach that atonement for sia, by the death of Christ, is the great doctrine of the whole word of God.

4. And that he was buried, and that he rose again
the third day according to the Scriptures:

There are two things taught in this, as in the preceding verso. First, the truth of the &ota referred to; and secondly, that those facts had been predicted. It is true that Christ was buried, and that he rose again on the third day. These facts were included in the revelation made to Paul, and the ti-uth of which he proceeds to confirm by abundant additional testimony. That these facts were predicted in the Old Testament, is taught in John 20, 9. Acts 26, 23. The passage especially urged by the apostles as foretelling the resurrection of Christ, is Ps. 16, 10. Peter proves that that Psalm cannot be understood of David, because his body was allowed to see corj’uption. It must, he says, be understood of Christ, who was i:iised from the dead, and “saw no corruption,” Acts 13, 34- 37. The prophetic Scriptures, however, are full of this doctime; for on the OQO hand they predict the aufforinga and death of the Messiah, and on the other his universal and perpetual dominion. It is only on the assumption that he was to rise from the dead that these two classes of prediction can be reconciled.

5. And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the
twelve;

As the resniTection of Christ is an historical fact, it is to be proved by historical evidence. The apostle therefore ap-Eeals to the teistimony of competent mtnesses. All human iwa assume that the testimony of two witnesses, when uncontradicted, and especially when confirmed by collateral evidence, produces such conviction of the truth of the fe<!t asserted as to justify even taking the lile of a feilow-creature. Confidence in such testimony is not founded on experience, but on the constitution of our nature. We are so constituted that we cannot refuse assent to the testimony of good men to a fact fairly within their knowledge. To render such testimony irresistible it ia necessaiy, 1. iSiat the &ct to be proved should be of a nature to admit of being certainly known, 2. That adequate opportunity be afforded to the witnesses to ascertain its natm-e, and to be satisfied of its verity. 3. That the witnesses be of sound mind and discretion. 4. That they be men of integrity. If these conditions be fulfilled, human testimony establishes the truth of a fact beyond reasonable doubt. If, however, in addition to these grounds of confidence, the witnesses give theii- testimony at the expense of great personal saciTfice, or confii-m it with their blood; if, moreover, the oecuiTence of the fact in cjuestion had been predicted centuries before it came to pass; if it had produced efifects not otherwise to be accounted for, efiects extending to all ages and nations; if the system of doctrine with which that feet is connected so as to be implied in it, commends itself as true to the reason and conscience of men; and if God confirms not only the testimony of the original witnesses to the feet, but also the truth of the doctrines of which that &et is the necessaiy baas, by the demonstration of hia Spii-it, then it is insanity and wickedness to doubt it. All these considerations concur in proof of the resurrection of Christ, and render it the best authenticated event in the history of the world.

The apostle does not refer to all the manifestations of our Lord after hia resurrection, but selects a few which he details in the order of their occurrence. The first appearance mentioned is that to Cephas; see Luke 24, 34, The second ocfluri’cd on the same day “to the eleven and those who were with them,” Luke 24, 33-36. To this Paul refers by saying, “then to the twelve;” comp. also John 20, 19. On this occa-Kon, when the disciples were terrified by his sudden appearance in the midst of them, he said, “Why are ye ti-oubled? and why do thoughts aiise in your heaiiis? Behold my hand a and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet.” Lake 24, 38-40. The apostles collectively, after the apostasy of Judas, are spoken of as the twelve according to a common usage, although at the time there were only eleven.

6. After that, he waa scon of above five hundred
brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain
unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

There is no distmct record of this event in the evangelic history. It may have taken place on the occasion when Christ met his disciples in Galilee, Before Ma death he told them, “After I am risen ain, I will go before you into Galilee,” Matt, 26, 32. Early m the morning of hisresuiTection he met the women who had been at his tomb, and said to them, “Be not afraid; go tell my brethren, that they go into Galileo, and there shall they see me,” Matt. 28, 10; and accordingly in v. 16, it is said, “Then the eleven went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.” This, therefore, was a formally appointed meeting, and doubtless made known as extenvely as possible to his followers, and it is probable, therefore, that there was a concourse of all who could come, not only from Jerusalem, but from the surrounding country, and from Galilee, Though intended specially for the eleven, it is probable that all attended who knew of the meeting, and could possibly reach the appointed place. Who would willingly be absent on such an occasion? Others think that this appearance took place at Jerusalem, where, in addition to the one hundred and twenty who constituted the nucleus of the church in the holy city, there were probably many disciples gathered from all parts of Jadea in attendance on the passover. The special valae of this testimony to the fact of

316 I. CORINTHIAlSrS IS, c. 7. 8.

Christ’s reeniTection, ai’isea not only from the number of the witnesses, but from Paul’s appeal to their testimony while tho majority of them were still alive. Some have fallen asle. This is the Christian expression for dying, v. 18, and 11, 30, Death to the helierer is a sleep for his boay; a period of rest to be followed by a glonoiis day.

7. After that, lie was seen of James; then of all
the apostles.

“Which James is here intended carmot be detennined, aa the event is not elsewhere recorded. The chronological order indicated in this citation of mtnesses, renders it improbable that the reference is to oar Lord’s interview with the two disci-Sles on their way to Emmaire, and is inconsistent with the traition preserved by Jerome, that Christ appeared to James immediately after his resurrection. It has heeii inferred that the James mtended was James the brother of our Lord, who preaded over the ohurob in Jerusalem, because he was so conspicuous and nniversally known. Then to all the apostles. This, for the reason given above, probably does not refer to the appearance of Christ to the eleven on the day in which he rose from the dead. It may refer to what is recorded in John 30, 26; or to the interview mentioned in Acts 1, 4. Whether James was one of the apostles is not determined by any thing in the verse. The word TrStrw may be used to indicate that the appearance was to the apostles collectively; and this, from its position, is the most natural erplanation. Or the meaning may be, he appeared to James separately, and then to all the apostles induiMng James. If the James intended was James of Jerusalem; and if that James were a different person from James the son of Alpheus (a disputed point), then the former interpretation should be preferred. For “the apostle” answers to “the twelve,” and if James of Jerusalem was not the son of Alphei, he was not one of the twelve.

8. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Zast of all may mean last of all the apostles; or, as isi more probable, last of all means the very last. As to an abortion he appeared to me. Such is Paul’s language concerning himself Thus true is it, that unmerited fitvours produce

I. CORIK”TIIIA]SfS 15, 8. <). 10. 31?

Belf-atasemcnt. Paul coiikl never think of the distinction conferred on him by Christ, without advertiog to hia own un worthiness,

9. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God.

The least, net I’eeause the last in the order of appointment, but in rank and dignity. Who am not -worthy to be called an apostle. See Matt. 3, 11. Luke S, 16. This deep humility of the apostlp, TPhioh led him to regard himself as the least of the apostles, was perfectly consistent with the strenuous assertion of his official authority, and of his claim to respect and obedience. In 2 Cor. 11, S and 12, 11, he says, he was “not behind the very ohiefest apostles;” and in Ctal. 2, 6-0, he claims full equahty with James, Cephas and John Those of hia children whom God intends to exalt to posts ol honour and power, he commonly prepares for their elevatior by leading them to such a knowledge of their sinfulness as to keep them constantly abased. Secause I persecuted the church of God. This is the sin which Paul never forgave himself He often refers to it with the deepest contrition, I Tim, 1, 1S~15, The forgiveness of sin does not obliterate the remembrance of it; neither does it remove the sense of unwortliines? and ill-desert.

10. But by the grace of God I am what I am
and his grace which (was bestowed) upon me was no!
in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they
all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with
me.

Christian humility does not consist in denying what there is of good in us; but in an abiding sense of ill-desert, and is the consciousness that what we have of good is due to tha gi’Hce of God, TIi6 grace of God, hi this connection, is not the love of God, but the inflaence of the Holy Spirit consid. ered as an unmerited favour. This is not only the theological and popular, but also the scriptural sense of the word graet in many passages. By the grace of Qod I am lohat I am. That is, divine grace has made me what I am, ‘Had I been left to myself, I should have continued a hlasphemer, a persecutor, and injurious. It is owins to his grace that I am now an apostle, preaching the faith Which I once destroyed.’ The grace of which he was made the sabjeot, he says, was not in vain, i, e. without effect, £ut, on the contrary, J laboured more aiundanfly than they all. This may mean either, more than any one of the apostles, or more than all of them together. The latter is more in keeping with the tone of the passage. It serves more to exalt the grace of God, to which Paul attributes every thing good; and it is historically true, if the New Testament record is to be our guide. Yet not J, i. e. the fact that I laboured so abundantly is not to he referred to me; I was not the labourer — but the grace which was with me. By some editors the article is omitted in the last clause, Tj truv i/ioi. The sense would then be with me, instead of, which was with me. In the one case grace is represented aa co-operating with the apoatle; in the other, the apostle loses sight of himself entii-ely, and asa-ibes every tiling to grace. ‘It was not I, but the grace of God.’ Theologically, there is no difference in these different modes of statement. The common text is preferred by most editors on critical grounds; and the sense, according to the common reading, is more in accordance with the spirit of the passage, and with Paul’s manner; comp. Rom. 7, 17. True, he did co-operate with the grace of God, but this co-operation was due to grace — so that with the strictest propriety he could say, * Not I, but the grace of God.’

11. Therefore whether (it were) I or they, so we
preach, and so ye believed.

This verse resumes the subject from which vs. 9. 10 are a digression. ‘Christ appeared to the apostles and to me; whether therefore I or they preached, we all proclaimed that fact, and ye all believed it.’ The resurrection of Christ was included in the preaching of all ministers, and in the faith of all Christians.

13. 13. Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resuiTection of the dead P But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

The admission of the resun-cetion of Christ is inconsistent with the denial of the resurrection of the dead. What has happened, may happen. The actual is surely possible. This mode of arguing snows that the objections urged in Corinth bore equally against the resurrection of Christ, and agidnst the general doctrine of the resurrection. They, therefore, could not have been founded on the peculiar difficulties attending the latter doctrine. They must have been derived from the aumption that the restoration to life of a body once dead, is either an impossibility, or an absurdity. Most probably, these objectors thought, that to reunite the soul with the body was to shut it up again in prison; and that it waa as much a degradation and retrocession, as if a man should again become an unborn infant. ‘No,’ these philosophers said, ’ the hope of the resuri’eotion “is the hope of swine.” The soul having once been emancipated from the defiling encumbrance of the body, it is never to be re-imprisoned.’

The argument of the apostle does not imply that the objectors admitted the resurrection of Christ. He is not argumg with them, but agmiKt them. His design ia to show that their objections to the resurrection proved too much. If they proved any thing, they proved what no Christian could admit, viz., that Christ did not rise from the dead. The denial of the resurrection of the dead involves the denial of the resurrection of Christ. The question discussed throughout this chapter is not the continued existence of the soul after death, but the restoration of the body to life. This ia the constant meaning of the expression “resurrection of the dead,” for which the more definite expression “resun-ection of the body” ia often substituted. Whether the felse teachers in Corinth, who denied the doctrine of the resurrection, also denied the immortahty of the soul, is uncertain. The probability is that they did not. For how oould any one pretend to be a Christian, and yet not believe in an hereafter? All that is certain is, that they objected to the doctrine of the resurrection on gi’ounc which logically involved the denial of the resmTection of Christ.

14. And if Christ be not risen, then (is) our preaching vain, and your faith (is) also vain.

This is the first consequence of denying the resurrection of Christ. The whole gospel is subverted. The reason why this fact ia so easential, is, that Christ rested the validity of all hia claims upon his resurrection. If he did rise, then he ia truly the Son of God and Saviour of the world. His sacrifice has been accepted, and God is propitioaa. If he did not rise, then none of these things is true. He was not what he elaimed to be, and his blood is not a ransom for smners. In Rom. 1, 3, the apostle expresses this truth in another form, by saying that Christ was by his resurrection demonstrated to be the Son of God, It was on account of the fandamental importance of this fact that the apostles were appointed to be the witnesses of Christ’s resurrection, Acta 1, 22. Then, i, e, in case Christ bo not risen, our preaahing is vain, i. e. empty, void of all truth, reality, and power. And your faith is also vain, i. e. empty, groundless. These consequences are inevitable. For, if the apostles proached a risen and living Saviour, and made his power to save depend on the &ct of his resurrection, of course, their whole preaching was iaise and worthless, if Christ were still in the grave. The dead cannot save the living. And if the object of the Christian’s feith be the Son of God as risen from the dead and seated at the right hand of God in heaven, they believed a fiilsehood if Christ be

15. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God;
because we have testified of God that he raised up
Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead
rise not.

This ia the second consequence. The apostles were false witnesses. They were guUty of deliberate falsehood. They testified that they had seen Christ after his resuiTection; that they had handled him, felt that he had flesh and bonea; that they had put their hands into his wounds, and knew assuredly that it waa their Lord. We are found, i. e. we are detected or manifested as being ^«&e witnesses,’ not such as falsely claim to be witnesses; but those who bear witness to what is false, Matt. 36, 60. Jiecause we testifed of God; literally, against God. We said he did, what in fact he did not do, if so be the dead rise not. Here again it is assumed that to deny that the dead rise is to deny that Christ has risen. But why is this? Why may not a man admit that Christ, the incaraate Son of God, arose from the dead, and yet consistently deny that there is to be a general resui’vection of the dead?

Eecauae the thing denied was that the dead could rise. The denial was placed on grounds which embraced the case of Christ. The argument is, If the dead cannot rise, then Christ did not rise; for Christ was dead.

16. Por if the dead rise not, then is not Christ
raised:

This ia a roassertion of the iaseparable connection b these two events. If there be no resurrection, Christ is not men. If the thing be impossible, it has never happened. The aenae in which Christ rose, determinea the sense in which the dead are said to rise. As it is the resurrection of Christ’s body that is affirmed, so it is the resurrection of the bodies of the dead, and not merely the continued existence of their eouls which is affirmed. The repetition in this verse of what had been said in v. 13, seems to be with the design of preparing the way for v. 17.

17. And if Christ be not raised, your faith (is)
vain; ye are yefc in your sins.

This is the third consequence of the denial of Christ’s resurrection. In V, 14 it was said, your faith is Kev% empty; here it is said to be jtmai<i, fruitless. In what sense the followbg clause explains; ye are yet in your sins, i. e. under the condemnation of sin. Comp. John 8, 21, “Ye shall die in your ans.” As Christ’s resurrection ia necessary to our justification, Rom. 4, 25, if he did not rise, we are not justified. To teach, therefore, that there is no resurrection, is to teach that there is no atonement and no pardon. Errorists seldom see the consequences of the false doctrines which they embrace. Many allow themselves to entertain doubts as to this very doctrine of the resurrection of the body, who would be Bhoeked at the thought of rejecting the doctrine of atonement. Yet Paul teaches that the denial of the one involves the denial of the other.

18. Then they also wliicli are fallen asleep in Christ

This is the fourth disastrous consequence of the denial of the doctrine in question. All the dead in Christ are lost. To fali asleep in Christ is to die in fiiith, or in communion with Cbrist foe salvation. See 1 Theas. 4, 14, Rev. 14, 13, Are perished; rather, they perished. ‘They perished when they died.’ Perdition, according to Scripture, is not annihilation, but everlasting naiaery and ain. It la the loss of holiness and happiness for ever. If Christ did not rise for the justification of those who died in him, they found no advocate at the bar of God; and have incun-ed the fiite of those who perish in their sin a. Rather than admit such conclusions as these, the Coiinthians might well allow philosophers to say what they pleased about the impossibility of a resurrection. It was enough for them that Christ had risen, whether they coidd understand how it can be that the dead should rise, or not.

19. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

Not only the future, but even the present is lost, if Christ be not risen. Not only did the departed sink into perdition when they died, but we, who are alive, are more miserable than other men. This is the last conclusion which the apostle draws from the denial of the resuiTection. 7y in this life only, the word ii.6vov, only, admits of a threefold connection. Although it stands at the end of the clause it may be connected, as in our translation, with the words “in this life.” ‘If in tliia life only.’ That is, if all the good we expect from Christ is to be enj oyod in this life, we are more miserable than other men. We are constantly esposed to all manner of persecutions and sufferings, while they are at theii- ease. 2. It may be connected with the word Christ. This is a very natural constmction, according to the poaition of the word a in the common text, for (Ic Xpiim /idvor), in Christ only, stand together. The sense would then be, ‘If we have set all our hopes on Christ, and he fails us, we are of all men most miserable.’ This, however, supposes the important clause, on which eveiy thing depends {if he fails ns), to be omitted. It also leaves the words in this life without importance. 3. liecent editors, following the older manuscripts, place to Xpurr before the verb, and mate tiovov qualify the whole clause. ‘If we have only hoped in Christ, and there is to be no fnlfilline of our hopes, we are more miserable than others.’ Or, ‘It we are only such (nothing more than such) who in life, and not in death, have hope in Christ,’ &c. The apposition between the dead, in v, 18, and the living in this verse, is in favour of the flret-mentioned explanation, ‘Those who died in Christ, perished when they died. And we, if all our hopes in Christ are confined to this life, are the most miserable of men,’ We have hoped. The Greek is ^XiriKores iiTftiv, which, as the commentators remai’k, expresses not what we do, but what we are. We are hopera. This passage does not tea«h that Christiana ai-e in this life more miserable than other men. This k contrary to experience, Clii-istians are unspeakably happier than other men. All that Paal means to say is, that if you take Christ from Christians, you take their all. Ho is the source not only of their future, but of their present happiness, “Without him they are yet in their sins, under the curse of the law, unreconciled to God, having no hope, and without God in the world; and yet subject to all the peculiar trials incident to a ChiTstian profession, which in the apostolic age often included the loss of all things.

30, But now is Christ risen from the dead, (and)
become the first-fruits of them that slept.

But now, yvvl 8«, i, e, aa the matter actually stands. All the gloomy consequences presented in the preceding verses follow from the assumption that Christ did not rise from the dead. But as in point of fact he did rise, these things have no place. Our preaching is not vain, your th is not vmn, ye are not in your sins, the dead in Christ have not perished, we are not more miserable than other men. The reverse of all this la tme, Christ has not only risen, but he has risen in a representative character. His resurrection is the pledge of the resurrection of his people. He rose as the first-fruits of them that slept, and not of them only, but as the firat-fruila of all who are ever to sleep in Jesus. The apostle does not mean merely that the resurrection of Christ was lo precede that of his people; but as the first sheaf of the bar peat presented to God aa a thank-offering, was the pledge and assurance of the ingathering of the whole harvest, so toe resurrection of Christ is a pledge and proof of the resuiTection of his people. In Rom. 8, 23 and 11, 16, the word dmipxq, first-fruits, nas the same force. Comp, also CoL 1, 18, where Christ is called “the first begotten from the dead,” and Rev. 1, 5. Of the groat harvest of glorified bodies which our earth is to yield Christ is the first-fruits. As ho rose, so all his people must; as certainly and as gloriously, Phil. 3, 21. The nature of thia causal connection between the resurrection of Chiist and that of his people, ia explained in the followhig vei-ses.

31. Tor since by man (came) death, by man (came)
also the resurrection of the dad.

The connection between this Terse and the precedmg is obvious. The resurrection of Christ secures the resun-ection of his peoplej/OT as there was a causal relation between the death of Adam and the death of his descendants, so there is a causal relation between the resnn’eotion of Chiist and that of hia people. What that causal relation is, is not here expressed. It ia simply asserted that as death is Bi AvSpunrov, by means of a man; Both a resurrection is Si” SyS-ponrov, b means of a man. Why Adam was the cause of death, and why Christ is the caaae of life, ia explained in the foiloiving verse, and abundantly elsewhere in Scripture, hut not here. By death, in this verse, ia meant the death of the body; and by the resurrection ia meant the restoration of the body to life. Thia, however, only proves that the death of which Adam was the cause includes phyaical death, and that the iife of which Chriat is the cause includes the fature life of the body. But as the life which we derive from Christ includes far more than the life of the body, so the death which flows from Adam includes far more than physical death,

33. Por as in Adam aH die, even so in Christ shall
all be made alive.

This is the reason why Adam was the cause of death, and why Chiiat is the cause of life. We die bj, meane of Adam, because we were in Adam; and we live by means of Christ, because we are in Chriat. Union with Adam is the cause of death; union with Christ is the cause of life. The nature of thia union and its consequences are more fully explained in Bom. 5, 12-21, In both cases it ia a repreaentative and vital union. We are in Adam becauae he waa our head and representative, and because we partake of his nature. And we are in Christ because he is our head and representative, and because we partake of hia nature through the indwelling of his Spirit. Adam, therefore, is the cause of death, because hia ein ia the judicial ground of our condemnation;:

we derive from him a corrapt and enfeebled nature. Christ ia tho cause of life, because his righteousness is the judicial ground of our justification; and because we derive from him the Holy Ghost, which ia the source of life both to the soul !tnd body. Comp. Rom. 8, 9-11,

That the word all in the latter part of this verse is to be restricted to all believers (or rather, to alt the people of Christ, as in&nts are included) is plain, 1. Because the word in both clauses is limited. It is the all who ai-e in Adam that die; and the all who are in Chi-ist who are made alive. As union with Christ is made the ground of the communication of liie here spoken of, it can be extended only to those who are ia him. But aecorduig to the constant representation of the Scriptures, none are m him but his own people, “If any man be in Christ, he ia a new creature,” 2 Cor, 6, 17. 2. Because the verb (^(oon-ott’u)) here found is never used of the wicked. Whenever employed in reference to the work of Christ it always means to communicate to them that life of which he is the source, John 5, 21. 6, 63, Rom. 8, 11. 1 Cor. 15, 45. Gal. 3, 21. The real meaning of the verse therefore, is, ‘As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall ail be made partakers of a glorious and everlasting life.’ Unless, therefore, the Bible teaches that all men are in Christ, and that all through him partake of eternal life, the passage must be restricted to his own people. 3. Because, althou Paul elsewhere apeaks of a general resurrection both of the just and of the unjust. Acts 24, 15, yet, throughout this chapter he spealie only of the resuri’ection of the righteous. 4. Because, in the parallel

Sssage in Rom. 5, 12-21, the same limitation must be made. V. 18 of that chapter it is said, “As by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men to justification of life.” That is, as for the offence of Adam all men were condemned, so for the righteousness of Chrbt all men are justified. The context and the analogy of Scripture require us to understand this to mean, as all who are in Adain are condemned, so all who are in Christ are justified. No historical Christian church has ever held that all men indiscriminately are justified. For whom God justifies them he also glorifies, Rom. 8, SO.

There are two other interpretations of this verse. According to one, the verb, shall be made alive, is taken to mean no more than shall be raised from the dead. But this, as akeady remarked, is not only inconsistent with the prevailing use of the word, but with the whole context. Others, admitting that the passage necessarily treats of a resurrection to glory and blessedness, insist that the word all must be taken to include all men. But this contradicts the constant doctrine of the Bible, and has no support in the context. It ia not absolutely all who die through Adam, but those only who were in him; so it is not absolutely all who live through Christ, but those only who are in him.

23. But every man in his own order: Christ the first-fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.

In his own order. The word Ta.yiia is properly a concrete term, meaning a band, as of soldiers. If this be insisted upon here, then Paul considers the hosts of those that rise as divided into different cohorts or companies; first Christ, then his people, then the rest of mankind. But the word ia used by later writers, as Clemens in his Epistle to the Corinthians I. 3?, and 41, in the sense of T«fw, order of succession. And this best suits the context, for Christ is not a band. All that Paul teaches is, that, althoagh the resmTection of Christ secures that of his people, the two events are not contemporaneous. Fii-st Christ, then those who are Chi-ist’s. There ia no intimation of any further division or separation in time in the process of the resurrection. The resurrection of the people of Christ is to take place at his coming, 1 Thess. 3, 13. 4, 14-19.

24, Then (cometh) the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Pather; when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power.

This is a very difficult passage, and the interpretations given of it are too numerous to be recited. The first question is, What is the end here spoken of? The common answer is, That it is the end of the world. That is, the close of the present order of things; the consummation of the work of redemption. In fevour of this view, it may be urged, 1. That where there is nothing ia the context to determine otherwise. The end naturally means the end of all things. There is nothing herp to limit the application, but the nature of the Buhjeot Bpoken of, 2. The analogy of Scripture is in favour of this explaaatiou. In I Pet. 4, 7 we find the expression “the end of all things Is at hand.” Matt, 24, 6, “The end is not yet;” V. 14, “Then shall the end come.” So in Mark 13, 1. Luke 21, S. In all these passages the end means the end of the world. 3. The equivalent expressions serve to explain the meaning of this phrase. The disciples asked our Lord, “What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the eud of the world?” (i. e. the consummation of the present dispensation.) Li answer to this question, our Lord said certain things were to happen, but “the end ia not yet;” and afterwards, “then shall the end come.” See Matt. 24, 3. 6. 14. The same expression occurs in the same sense, Matt, 18, 30. 28, 20, and elsewhere. “The end,” therefore, means the end of the world. In the same sense the phi-ase “until the restoration of all things” is probably used in Acts 3, 21, 4. What immediately follows seems decisive in fevour of this intei’pretation. The end is, when Christ sbsJl deliver up his kingdom, after having subdned all bis enemies; i. e. after having accomplished the work of redemption.

Many commentatoi-s understand by the end, the end of the resurrection. That work, they say, is to be accomplished by distinct stages. First the resurrection of Christ, then that of bis people, then that of the wicked. This last, they say, is expressed by then cometh the end, viz., the end of the resurrection, Agmnst this view, however, are all the arguments above stated in favour of the opinion that the end means the end of the world. Besides, the docti-ine that there are to be two resuiTections, one of the righteous and another of the wicked, the latter separated from the former hv an unknown period of time, is entirely foreign to the New Testament, unless what is said in the 20th chapter of Revelation teaches that doctrine. Admitting that a twofold resurrection is there spoken of, it would not be proper to transfer from that passage an idea foreign to all Paul’s representations of the subject. If that feet was revealed to John, it does not prove that it was revealed to Paul. All that the most stringent doctrine of inspiration requires is, that the passages should not contradict each other. The passage m Revelation, however, is altogether too uncertain to be made the rule of interpretation for the plainer declarations of the epistolarj- portions of the New Testament. Oq the contrary, what is doubtful m the former should be explained by what is clearly taught in the latter, Secondly, it is clearly taught in the gospels and epistles that the resurrection of the righteous and of the wiched is to be contemporaneous. At least, that is the mode in which the subject is always presented. The element of time (i, e, the chronological succession of the events) may indeed in these representations be omitted, as is bo often the case in the prophecies of the Old Testament. But unless it can be proved from other sources, that events which are foretold as contemporaneous, or as following the one the other in immediate succession, are in feet separated by indefinite periods of time, no such separation can properly be assumed. In the evangelists and epistles the resurrection of the righteous and that of the wicked are spoken of as contemporaneous, and sinoe their separation in time is nowhere else revealed, the only proper inference is that they are to occnr together. In Matt. 24, 3, the comnig of Christ and the end of the world are coupled together aa contemporaneous. And throughout that chapter our Lord foretells what is to happen before that event, and adds, “Then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven., and he shall send his angels with the sound of a gi’eat trampet, and they shall gather together the elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other,” vs. 30. 31. In John 5, 28. 29 it is said, “The hour is combg when all (good and bad) who are in their graves shall hear the voice of the Son of Man, and shall come forth, they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resuri-ection of damnation.” In 2 Thess, 1, 7-10, Christ ia said to come to take vengeance on those who obey not the gospel, and to be gloi’ified in the saints. These events go together. Besides, oui’ Lord rej)eatedly says that he will raise up his people “at the last day,” John 6, 39. 40. 11, 24, and therefore not an indefinitely long period before the last day. According to the uniform representations of the Scriptures, when Chi-ist comes he is to raise all the dead and separate the wicked from among the just as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. Or, according to another figure, he is to send forth his angels and separate the tares from the wheat. It has therefore been the constant fth of the church that the second advent of Christ, the resurrection of the just and of the unjust, the final

judgment and end of the world — are parts of one great transaction, and not events which are to succeed each other at long intervals of time. All this, however, ia aaid with diffidence and submission. It may prove to be otlierwiae. The predictions oi’tlie Old Testament produced the universal impression that the fii-at ooming of Christ was to be attended at once by events ivhioh we learn from the New Testament require ages to bring about. Still, we are bound to take the Scriptures as they stand, and events which are described as contemporaneous ai’e to be assumed to be so, until the event proves the contiary. We may be perfectly sure that the Scriptures will prove infallibly true. The predictions of the Old Testament, although in some points misinterpi-eted, or rather interpreted too iar, by the ancient church, were fully vindicated and explained by the event.

The second question to be considered is, When is the end of the world to take place? According to some, at Christ’s coming; according to others, at an indeiinite period after his second coming. It may be admitted that this verse is not decisive on this point. It marks the succession of certain events, but determines nothing as to the interval between them. Fii-st, Christ’s resuiTection; then the resurrection of hia people; then the end of the world. But as it is said that those who are Chi-ist’s shail rise at his coming, and then cometh the end; the natm-d impression is that nothing remains to be done after the resurrection before the end comes. This view is confii-med by the numerous passages of the New Testament, several of which have already been quoted, which connect the general judgment and end of the world as intimately with the coming of Christ as the resuiTection of his people. Some of those who assume that an indefinite period is to elapse between the coming of Christ and the end of the world, suppose that the intervening period is to be occupied not in the work of conversion, but in the subjugation of the enemies of Christ spoken of in the following verses. The common opinion among those who adopt this interpretation is, that the mterval in question is to be occupied by the pei-sonal reign of Chiist on earth. This is tho doctrine of the ancient ChiEasts, and of modern IVIillenarians. The foi-m which this doctrine has commonly assumed in ancient and modern times is only a modified Judaism, entirely at variance with the spirituality of the gospel and with the teachings of the apostle in this chapter. He tells us that flesh and blood, i. e. bodies organized as oar present bodies aio, i. e. natural bodies, cannot inherit the kmgdom of God, The whole design of the latter portion of this chapter is to show that after the resuri-eetion, the bodies of believers iviil be like the glorious body of the Son of God, adapted to a heayeiily, and cot to an earthly condition.

A tMrd question which this verse presents is, In what sense is Christ to deliver up the kingdom to the Father? In the common text the words are orni’ jrapoSiu, wheiz he shall have delivered up / most of the modern editors read mppa8i8^, wAe» he delivers up. That is, when the end comes, Christ ia to deliver up the Kingdom to his Father, What does this mean? The Scriptures constantly teach that Christ’s kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and of his dominion there is no end. In what sense, then, can he be said to deliver up his kingdom? It must be remembered, that the Scriptures speak of a tbreofbld kingdom as belonging to Christ. 1. That which necessarily belongs to him as a divine person, extending over all creatures, and of which he can never divest himself, 2, That which belongs to him as the incarnate Son of God, extending over his own people. This also ia everlasting. He will for ever remain the head and sovereign of the redeemed. 3. That dominion to which he was exalted after his resurrection, when all power in heaven and eai-th was committed to his hands. This kingdom, which he exercises as the Theanthropos, and which extends over all principalities and powers, he is to deliver up when the work of redemption is accomplished. He was invested with this dominion m his mediatorial chai-acter for the purpose of carrying on his work to its consummation. When that is done, i. e. when he has subdued all his enemies, then he will no longer reign over the universe as Mediator, but only as God; white his headship over his people is to continue for ever. To God even the Father, i. e. to him who is at once his God and Father. This is the Scriptural designation of the fii-st person of the Trinity. He is the God of the Lord Jesus Chi-ist, inasmuch as he is the God whom Christ came to reveal, and whose work he performs. He is his Father in virtue of the eternal relation subsisting between the first and second persons in the Godhead.

The fourth question which this pregnant verse suggests is presented in the last clause. When he shall have put down all rule, and authority and power, Calvin and others understand this to mean, ’ when he shall have abrogated ail other dominion than his own,’ Whatever authority is now exercised by one man over others is at last to be abolished, and mei’ged in the all-pei-vading authority of God. Most commentators, in obedience to the context, understand the passage to refer to all hostile powers, ^7hether demoniacaJ or human. These are to he put down., i. e. effectually subdued; not annihilated, and not converted; but simply depiived of all power to disturb the harmony of bis Mngdom.

25. Por he must reign, till lie hath put all enemies under his feet.

This verse assigns the reason why Christ cannot relinquish his donainion over the univeree as mediator until the end ooniea, and why he wUl then deliver it up. He must reign until the purpose for which he was invested with this universal doniimon is accomplished. As in Ps. 110 it is said to the Messiah, “Sit thoa on my right hand until I make thy enemies thy footstool,” maay assume that Gvd is the subject of the verb has put. The meaning would then be, ‘He must reign until God has put all his enemies under his feet,’ But this is inconsistent with the context, Cbi-istis to put down all rule, authority and power, v. 24, and be reigns until he has accomplished that work. The two modes of representation are perfectly consistent. The Father created the world, though he did it through the Son, Heb. 1, 3. The work, therefore, is sometimes ascribed to the one and sometimes to the other. In like manner the Father subdues the powers of darkness, but it is through Christ to whom all power in heaven and earth has been committed. It is therefore equally proper to say that God makes the enemies of Christ his footstool, and that Christ himself puts his enemies under his feet. The enemies who are to be thus subdued are not only intelligent beings hostile to Christ, but all the fonna of evil, physical and mora because death is specially included. By subduing, however, is not meant destroymg or banishing out of existence. The passage does not teach that Christ is to reign until all evil is banished from the oniverse. Satan is said to be subdued, when deprived of his power to injm-e the people of God. And evil in like manner is subdued when it is restrained within the limits of the kingdom of darkness,

26. The last enemy (that) shdl be destroyed (is) death.

Death shall reign until the resun-ection. Then men shall never more be subject to his power. Then death shall be HwaUowed up in victory, Luke 20, 26. “Neither shall they die any more,” 2 Tim. I, 10. Rev. 20, 14.

27. Por he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith. All things are put under (him, it is) manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

The proof that death is finally to be destroyed is derived from the 8th Psalm, where the auhjection of all things to the Messiah la predicted. There are two passages of the Old Testament frequently quoted ia the New Testament as foretelling the absolutely univeraal dominion of the Messiah, Ps. 110 and Ps. 8. The former is quoted, or its language appropriated, in T. 25. Matt. 22, ii. Acts 2, 34. Eph. 1, 22. Heb. 1, 13. 10, 12. 13. 1 Pet. 3, 22. In this there is no difficulty, as that Psalm clearly refers to the Messiah and to none dae. The 8th Psalm is quoted and applied to Christ in tliia passage, and in Eph. 1, 22. Heb. 2, 8, and 1 Pet. 3, 22. As this Psalm has no appai’ent reference to the Messiah, but ia a thanksgiving to God for his goodneaa to man, the use made of it in the New Testament is to be understood, aa an inspired exposition of its hidden meaning. That is, when the Psalmist asdd, •’ Thon madest him to nave dominion over the works of thy hands, thou hast put all things under his feet,” we learn from the New Testament that the Spiiit of God intended by these words far more than that man was invested with dominion over the beasts of the field. There is no limit to the all things here intended. Heb. 2, 8. Man is clothed with dominion over the whole universe, over all pi-incipalities and powers, and every name that is named, not only in this world but also in that which is to come. This ia fulfilled in the man Chiiat Jesus, into whose hands all power in heaven and earth has been committed. This may be called the hidden meaning of the Psalm, because it never would have been discovered without a further revelation such as we find in the exposition given by the inspired apostles. When he saith, orav eijrjj. This may mean either, when the Scripture saith, or when God saith. The latter is better on account of what follows. The verb ia not to be translated as in the present tense, but, as the better commentators agi-ee, in the past future, see v, 24. Heb. 1, fl. ‘When God sh have said.’ That is, when God shall have declared hia purpose to subject all things to Christ accomplished, it will then be manifest that all things are subject to Mm, God only excepted.

38. And when all things shall be subdued unto
him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto
him that put all things under him, that God may be
all in all.

“When the work of redemption baa been accomplished, the dead raised, the judgment held, the enemies of Christ all subdued, then, and not tiU then, will the Son also himself be subject to him who put all things under him. This passage is evidently parallel with that in t. 24. The subjection of the Son to the Father here means precisely what is there meant by his delivering up the kingdom to God even the Father. The thing done, and the person who does it, are the same. The subjection here spoken of is not predicated of the eternal Logos, the second person of the Ti-inity, ang more than the kingdom spoken of m v. 24 is the dominion which belongs essentially to Christ as God. As there the word Christ designates the Theanthropoa, so does the word Son here designate, not the Logos as such, but the Logos as incarnate. And as the delivery of the kingdom or royal authority over the universe committed to Christ after hia resurrection, is consistent at once with his continued dominion as God over all creatures, and with his continued headship over his people; so is the subjection here spoken of consistent with his eternal equality with the Father, It is not the subjection of the Son as Son, but of the Son as Theanthropos of which the apostle here speaks. The docti-ine of the true and proper divinity of our Lord is so clearly revealed in Scripture, and is so inwrought into the fiiith of hia people, that such passages as these, though adduced with so much confidence by the impagners of that docti-ine, give believers no more trouble than the ascription of the limitations of our nature to God. When the Bible says that God repents, we know that it is consistent with his immutability; and when it says the Son is subject or inferior to the Father, we know that it is consistent vAm their equality, as eertmnly as we know that saying that man is immortal is consistent with saying he is mortal. “We know that both of the laat-mentioned propositions ai’e true; because mortality is predicated of man in one aspect, and immoi-tality in another aspect. In one sense he is mortal, in another sense he is immortal. In like manner we know that the verbally inconsistent propositions, the Son is subject to the Father, and, the Son is equal with the Father, are both true. In one sense he ia snliject, in another sense he is equal. The son of a king may be ‘the equal of his father in every attribute of his nature, though officially infenor. So the eternal Son of God may be cogqual with the Father, though officially subordinate. What difScuIty is tjiere in this? “What shade does it cast over the full Godhead of our adorable Redeemer? The ewbordmation, however, here spoken of, is not that of the human nature of Christ separately considered, as when he is said to suffer, or to die, or to be ignorant; but it is the official subordination of the incarnate Son to God as Qod. The words avros o i^Eos, the Son himself, here designate, as in bo many other places, not the second peraon of the Tiinity as such, but that person as clothed in our nature. And the subjection spoken of, ii not of thefoiTaer, but of the latter, L e, not of the Son as Son, but of the Son as incarnate; and the subjection itself is official and therefore perfectly consistent with equahty of nature.

There is another difficulty connected with this verse which ifc may be well to notice. According to the Scriptures and the creeds of all the great historical churches (Greek, Latin, Lutheran and Reformed), the term Son, as applied to Christ, designates his divine nature. It is a term of nature and not of office. He was from eternity the Son of God. Tet it is of the Son that subjection is here predicated. This is urged as an argument agamst his eternal sonship. The fact, however, is, that the person of Christ may be designated from one nature, when the predicate belongs either to the opposite natm’e or to the whole person. That is, he may be called God when what is S!ud of him is true only of his human nature or of his complex person as God and man; and he may be called man, when what is sd is tme only of his divine nature. Thus he is called the Son of Man when omnipresence and omniscience are ascribed to him; and he is called God, the Son of God, the Lord of glory when he ia said to die. These passages do not prove that the human nature of Christ is every where present; or that hifl divine nature suffered and died. Keither do such expressions as that in the text prove that the Son as such is inferior to the Father, nor that the term Son is not a scriptural designation of his divine nature. The principle here adverted to is so important, and serves to explain so many passages of Scripture, that it will bear to be often repeated.

That God may be all in all. Before the ascension of Christ, God reigned as God; after that event he reigned and still reigns through the Theanthropos; when the end comes, the Thuanthropoa will deliver up this administrative kingdom, and God again be all in all, Saoh ie the representation of Scripture, and such seems to be the simple meaning of this passage. When our Lord ascended up on high all power in heaven and earth was given to him. It was given to him then, and therefore not possessed before. He is to retsun this delegated power in his chai-acter of Mediator, God-man, nntdl his enemies are put under his feet. Then he, the God-man, ia to deliver it up. And God as God will reign supreme. The phrase here used, ra jrdio-a (or iravra) iv iramv, all in all, depends (as ia the case with all similar formnlas), for its precise meaning on the connection. If words be taken by themselves, and made to mean any thing which their signiflcation will admt, without regard to the context or to the analogy of Scripture, then the authority of the word of God is effectually subverted. No book, human or divine, can be interpreted on a principle so unreasonable. Some, however, regardless of this universally admitted rule of interpretation, say that these words teach that the whole universe is to be merged in God — he is to become all in all — he will be all, and all will be God. Others limit the last all to intelligent creature, and the sense in which God ia all is restricted to his gracious influence; so that while the continued personal existence of rational creatures is provided for, it is assumed that God is to reign supreme m all intelligent beings. All «n and evil will thus be banished from the whole universe. This intei-pretatioa is, in the first place, perfectly arbitrary. If the meaning of the words is to be pressed beyond the limits assigned by the context and the analogy of Scripture, why limit iv x«<ri to intelligent creatures, andra ^di/ra to mere gracious control? The passive teaches pantheism, if it teaches universalism. Secondly, this interpretation is contrary to the context. Paul is speaking simply of the continuance of the mediatorial dominion of Christ over the universe. That dominion was given to him for a speoifio purpose; when that purpose is accomplished, he will give it up, and God, instead of reigning through Christ, will be recognized as the immediate sovereign of the universe his co-equal, co-etemal Son, clothed in our nature, being, as the eviirlasting bead of the redeemed, officially subordinate to him. In other words, the whole question, so to speak, is whose hands are to hold the reins of universal dominion. They are now in the hands of Christ; hereafter they are lo be in the hands of God as such. The passage does not teach ua the design of redemption, but what is to happen when the redemption of God’s people is accomplished. Then the Messianic reign is to cease, and God ia to rule supreme over a univei-se reduced to order, the people of God being saved, and the finally impenitent shut up with Satan and his angels in the prison of despair. Thirdly, the interpretation which makes this passage teach the restoration of all intelligent creatures to holiness, ia contrary to the express declarations of Scriptures and to the faith of the church universal. This the most accomplished of its advocates virtually admit. See for example Olshausen’s commentary on this epistle. If the evidence m support of the doctrine of the everlasting perdition of the wicked were not overwhelming, it never could have become a part of the faith of the uoiveraal church. And that doctrine being once established on its own grounds, doubtful passages must be interpreted in accordance wife it.

There is another orthodox interpretation of this passage. It is assumed to treat of the final result of the work of redemption. God will reign supreme in all. But the all is restricted to the subjects of redemption. The whole chapter treats of those who are in Christ. It is of their resurrection, and of the effect of redemption in their case, the apostle is assumed to speak. ‘All who are in Christ shall be made alive, V. 22, and God shall reign in them all,’ The sense is good, but this interpretation overlooks what intei-venes between vs. 22 and 23 conoemmg the kingdom of Christ and its being given up.

29. Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why arc they then baptized for the dead?

The apostle, after the preceding digression, returns to bis argument for the resurrection. ’ ‘Hie dead ai-e certainly to be raised, otherwise {Itrei) what shall they do who are baptized for the dead? ‘This practice (whatever it was) of baptiang for the dead, takes for granted that the dead are to rise. What shall they do, i. e. What account will they give of themselves? what explanation of their conduct can they make? The most important of the numerous interpretations of this verseadmitofbeing reduced to the following classes; 1. Those which turn on the sense given to the word baptize. 2. Those which depend on the explanation of the prepoation vwip, for.

3. Those which assume an ellipsia in the verso, i. Those which turn on the explanation of tSv viKpSiv, ttie dead. I. The simplest and most natural interpretation takes the word baptize in its ordinary sense. ‘What do they do who allow themselves to be baptized in the place of the dead? ‘This supposes that the custom of vicarious baptism, as afterwards practised by the Cei-inthiana and Marciooites, had already been introduced into Corinth. Among those heretical sects, £ a catechumen died before ba])tism, some one waa baptized in his name, in order that he might be enrolled among Chiistians and receive the benefit of the ordinance. The objections to this intorpretation are, that the practice was superstitious, founded on wrong views of the nature and efSoaoy of baptism. 3. That there are no traces elsewhere of the prevalence of vicarious baptism before the second century. 3. That it was imiversally condemned by the churches as heretical. 4. That it cannot be supposed that the apostle would refer to such a superstitious custom without condemning it. These objections are in a measure met by the following considerations; 1. Paul, so far from intimating any approbation of the costom, distinctly separates himself troni its abettors. He does not say, ‘What shall wo do’ — ‘What shall they do.’ It was something with which he had no fellowship. 3. That this method of arguing against others from then’ own concessions, is one which the apostle frequently employs. 3. That when his mind is full of a particuhir subject he does not leave it, to pronounce judgment on things incidentally introduced. Thus, in chap, 11, 5, when treating of women speaking in the church unveiled, he expresses no disapprobation of their speaking in public, although he afterwards condemned it. A still more striking example of the same thing is to be foand 10, 8, where he speaks of the Coi-inthians “eittmg at meat in an idol’s temple,” without any disapprobation of Uie thing itself but only of its influence on the weaker brethren. Yet, in 10, 14-23, he proves that the thing itself was an act of idolatry, 4. That the entire disappearance of this custom in the orthodox church, although other superstitious observances not less objectionable soon prevailed, is probably to be referred to the practice having been forbidden by the apostle as soon as he reached Corinth. This may have been one of the things which he left, “to be set in order when he came,” 11, 34. 5. The state of the church in Corinth, as disclosed by this epistle, was not such as to render the adoption of such a custom by a portion of the people, incredible. Baptising for the dead was not so bad as sitting at the table of devils, 10, 21. A second interpretation under thia head wes the word baptize the figurative sense which it lias in Matt. 20, 22, Luke 12, 50, “I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I strMtened until it be accomplished!” According to this view, Paul here refers to the baptism of afflictions, ‘Why do men suffer so for the hopelessly dead? if the dead are not to rise, what is the use of suffering so much for them? i, e, of lahoui-ing bo much, and enduring so much for men who, when dead, are never to live again.’ This, however, evidently puts a sense on the word dead, which it will not hear. It is assumed to designate not those actually dead, bat mon who when dead are not to rise again.

Of the second class of interpretations some propose to render lfp by over. ‘Why do they baptize over the dead? i. e. over their graves.’ Sometimes, for the sate of expressing then- feith in the resurrection. Christians are said to have been baptized over the graves of the martyrs. Others say that vTTip means in the place of. ‘Why should men be baptized in place of the dead? i. e. to supply their places in the church, and thus keep up the ranks of believers,’ A third class propose to take veKpuicfor the singular, and to read, ‘Why are they baptized for one dead? ‘Others say the meaning is, for the dead, i e. for bodies. What is the use of being baptized for a dead body? a body which is never to live again. He that ia baptized receives the ordinance believing thjit his body is not to remain dead. Calvin and others understand the dead to mean here, those about to die, ‘Why should baptism be administered for those on the verge of the grave — if there be no resurrection f ‘Finally, some suppose the passage is elliptical. Fully expressed it would be, ‘What do they do who are baptized for the resuiTection of the dead f ’ i. e, in hope of the resurrection which was professed by all who receive baptism. The darkness which rests on this passage can never be entirely cleared away, because the reference is to a custom of which no account is extant. Jf the dead rise not at all belongs to the latter member of the verse. ‘If the dead rise not at all, why are they baptized for them? ‘Instead of tSw veKpSiv, the dead, modern editors read avrH^v, them.

30. And why stand we in jeopardy every boiir? Here Paul speaks for himself. With baptizing for the dead, he had nothing to do. ‘Why do they allow tlieiiisewe.s,’ he asks, ’ to he baptized for the dead? ‘That, as would appear, is what hU opponents did. As an additional argument for the doctrine whidi he ia defending, he urges, that its denial destroys at least one of the great motives to self-denial. ‘If there be no resurrection, on which all our hopes as Christians depend, why should we voluntarily fenconnter pei’petual danger? ‘It is to he remembered that, according to Paul’s doctrine and previous ai-gument, if there be no resurrection, then Christ is not risen, and if Christ be not risen, there is no atonement, no reconciliation with God, We are in a state of final and hopeless condemnation. What is the use of labouring to save men, if there bo no salvation?

31. I protest by your rejoicing which I have in
Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

Paul solemnly assures his readers that he was constantly in jeopar, for, says he, Jdie daily, i. e. I sun constantly exposed to death, 2 Cor. 4, 10. Sy yottr boasting which J have. This is not the meaning, bat, ‘-By my boasting concerning you.’ That ia, ‘as surely as I boast of you, and rejoice over you.’ The pronoun vitiripav, ymtr, is to be taken objectively (as in Rom, 11, 31; comp. also 1 Cor. 9, ] 2) the boasting of which ou are the object. Which Ihave in Christ Jesiia, i. e. which have in communion with Christ. It was a rejoicing which he, as a Christian minister, had over them as the seals of his miuistiy.

32. If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to-morrow we die.

The apostle refers to one, Mid probably a recent instance of his exposure to death. aJ%e,T the manner of men, i. e. with those views and interests which detennine the conduct of ordinary men, i. e. without hope in the resurrection. J ham fought with beasts at Rhesus. This may be understood either litei’ally or feuratively. Against the Bteral interpretation is urged, I, “Hie improbability that, as a Roman citizen, he should have been subjected to that punishment. But his being a Roman citizen did not prevent his being thrice heaten with rods, by Roiuan mastrates, or at least, by others than ...Googic Jews, and contrary to law, 2 Cor. 11, 25. 2. The silence of The Acta oa the subject. But we learn from 2 Cor. II, 23-29, that scarcely a tithe of what Paul did and suffered is recoi’ded in The Acts, 3. The omission of any reference to his exposure to wild beasts in the long enumeration of hia aafferinga in 2 Cor. 1 1, 23-29. This is a more serious objection. Considering, moreover, that Paul was at Ephesus exposed to the yiolent tumult of the people, and that this expression is often used by the ancients figuratively for contests with enraged men, the probability is, that it is to be so understood here. ‘What to me is the advantage f ‘If I have no other views or hopes than ordinary men, whose expectations are confined to tnia world, what is the use of ineuri-ing so many dangers? ‘If the deadriae not. This clause does not belong to the one preceding, as it is pointed in oar version, but to what follows. ‘If the dead rise not, let us eat and diink, for to-morrow we die.’ The natural consequence of denying the doctrine of the resurrection, involving as it does the denial of the gospel, and the consequent rejection of all hope of salvation, is to make men reckless, and to lead them to abandon themselves to mere sensual enjoyments. If man has no glorious hereafter, he naturally sinks towards the level of the brutes, whose destiny he

33. Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt
good manners.

This warning flows naturally from what had been said. If the tendency of the denial of the resurrection be to render men reckless and scnsnal, then the Corinthians should not be deceived by the plausible arguments or specious conduct of the errorists among them. They should avoid them, under the conviction that all evil is contagious. Evil commimicortions. The word properly means a being together, comjxmionsMp. It is contact, association with evil, that is declai-ed to be corrupting. This is a fiict of common experience, and therefore the apostle expresses it in a verse borrowed from the Greek poet, Menander, which had probably become a proverb. It is only when men associate with the wicked with the desire and purpose to do thom good, that they can rely on the protection of God to preserve them from contamination.

34. Awake to rigliteoHsne’ss, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I spealc (this) to yotir shame.

Surrounded by evil teachers, the CorinthiaQa had need not only of being on their guard against deception, but also of /igilance. Ataake. The word properly means, to become sober, to arouse from a state of drunkenness or torpor. The call is to prompt exertion to shake off the delusion under which they were lying as to their security. To rtffhleousneas, literally, righteously, i. e. in a proper manner. ‘Awake rigLtl3-,’ or, as Luther renders it, Wake right up. And sin not, i. e, do not allow yourselves to be earned away into sin. This was the end to be answered by their vigilance. There was need of this exhortation, /or some have not the knowledge of God; Uterally, have ignorance of God. They are ignorant of God; and therefore they deny the resurrection. Comp, Matt. 22, 29, where our Lord says to the Sadducees who denied the resurrection, “Te do en-, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.” X apeak this to your shame. It should make you ashamed that there are men among you capable of calling in question one of the great essential facts of the gospel — the resurrection of the dead,

Natwe of the resurrection body, vs. 35-58.

Having proved the fiict of the resurrection, the apostle comes to illustrate its nature, or to tea«h with what Mad of bodies the dead are to rise. It seems that the great objection against the doctrine in the minds of his readers rested on the assumption that our future bodi are to be of the same natui’e with Wiose which we now have; that is, natural bodies eon sisting of flesh and blood, and sustned by air, food and sleep. Paul says this is a foolish assumption. Our future bodies may be material and identical with our present bodies, and yet organized in a very different way. loupliuit a seed; it does not come up a seed, but a flower. “Wny then may not the future be to the present body what the flower is to the seed? vs. 35-37. Matter admits of indefinite varieties in organization. There is not only immense diversity in the vegetable productions of the earth, but even flesh is variously modified m the different orders of animals, vs. 38. 39. This is true not only as to the earth, for there are heavenly as well as earthly bodies. And even the sun, moon and stai-s differ from each otlicr in glory; why then may not our future differ from our present Dodies in gloiy? vs. 40.41. Such not only may be, but will be the case. The body deposited in the grave ia corraptible, mean, weak, and, in a word, natural; as raised from the grave, it will be incorruptible, gloriona, powerful, and spiritual, vs. 42-44. This is according to Sciiptm-e, Adam was created with a natural body, adapted to an earthly state of existence; Christ, as a lifeving spuit, has a spiritual body. As Adam was before Christ, so our earthly tanemaclea are before our heavenly ones. As we have borne the image of the earthly, we shall bear the image of the heavenly, vs. 45-49. It ia freely admitted that flesh and blood, i, e. bodies organized as ours now are, are unfit for heaven. Corruption cannot inherit incorruption, v. 50. But our bodies are to be changed. Tills change shall be instantaneous and at the last day. It shall embrace both the living and the dead. Corruption shall put on incorruption, mortality shall put on immortality, vs. 61-53, When this is done, the original promise that death shall be swallowed up in victory, wdl be fully accomplished, V. 54. Death, therefore, to the believer, haa loat its sting, and the grave is conquered. Death haa no ating but sin; sin haa no strength but from the law; the law has no power over those who are in Christ Jesus, therefore thanks he to God, who giveth us the victory tlu’ough Ohriat Jesus our Lord 1 vs. 55-57. Seeing then that we have such a glorious hereafter, we should be steadfast, unmoveable, always aboundmg in the work of the Lord, v. 58.

35. But some (man) will say. How are the dead
raised up? and with what body do they come?

The discussion of the fact of the resurrection being ended, the apostle comca to consider the manner of it. He supposes some objector to ask, .Hbw) are the dead raised up? This may mean, How can a corrupted and disorganized body be restored to life? And the next question, With what body do they come? may refer to the result of the process. What ia to be the nature of our future bodiea? Or the latter question may be merely explanatory of the’ former, so that only one point is presented. How, i. e. with what kind of body are the dead raised? There are, however, two distinct questions, for although the two are not connected by khI, and, but by the

particle Si, whioli might be merely explanatory, yet the apostle really answers, in what follows, both questions, viz., How it is possible for life to come out of death, and, What is to be the nature of the body after the resurrection. The latter difficulty waa the main one, and therefore to that the most of what follows refers. The great objection in the imnds of the Corinthians to the dootrine of the resurrection was evidently the same as that of the Saddacces. Both supposed our future bodies are to be like our present ones. Our Lord’s answer to the Sadducees, therefore, is the same as that which Panl wes to the Coi-inthian objectors. The future body is not to be like the present. To reject a plainly-revealed and most important doctrine on such grounds as these is wicked as well as foolish, and therefore the apostle says in the next verse —

36. (Thou) fool, that which thou so west is not
quickened, except it die.

It is not. Thou fool, but simply. Fool! an exclamation both of disapprobation and contempt. Luke 13, 30. Horn. 1, 22. Eph. 5, 15. It does not, however, necessarily express any bitteraesa of feeling; for our blessed Lord said to his doubting disdples, “fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! “Luke 24, 25, It was the senselessness of the objection that roused the apostle’s indignation. The body cannot live again because it dies. Fool 1 says Paul, a seed cannot live unless it does die. Disorganization is the necessary condition of reorganization. If the seed remain a seed there ia an end of it. But if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit, John 12, 24. The seed is as much disorganized, it as really ceases to be a seed when sown in the ground, as the body when laid in the grave. If the one dies, the othei” dies. Death is not annihilation, but disorganization; the passing from one form or mode of exiatence to another. How then can the disorganization of the body in the grave he an objection to the doctrine of a resurrection? It may be said that the apostle does not pursue the objection; that the body is not only disorganized but dispersed; its elements scattered over the earth, and embraced in new combinations; whereaa in the seed the germ remains, so that there is no interruption of the organic life of the plant. To those who make this objection our Saviour’s answer is, that they err, “not knowing the power of God,” Who knows where the piindple of tlu organic life of the tody is? It may be in the aoul, which when the time oomea may unfold itself into a new body, gathering or regathering its materials according to ita own law; just as the prindple of vegetable life in the seed unfolds itself into some gorgeous flower, gathering from surrounding nature the materials for its new organization. The identity between the

g’esent and future body is implied in the apostle’s illustration, ut it is hia object neither to aasei-t that identity, nor to explain its nature. The latter is a veiy subordinate point. The Bible cleai’ly teaches that our bodies hereafter ai-e to be the same aa those which we now have; but it nowhere teaches us wherein that sameness condsta. In what sense is a sprouting aeorn the same with the full-grown oak f Not in substance, not in form, not in appearance. It is, however, the same individual organism. The sue is true of the human body. It is the same in old age that it was in infency. But in what sense? The materials of which the body is composed change many times in the course of an ordinary life, yet the body remains the same. We may rest assured that om- future bodies will be the same with those which we now have in a high and satisfying sense, though until the time comes we may be as little able to explain the nature of that identity as we ai-e to tell what constitutes the identity of the body in this Ufe. The same body which is sown in tears, shall be reaped in joy. To doubt the fact of the resurrection, because we cannot understand the process, is, aa the apostle says, a proof of folly.

37. And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other (grain):

The first clause of this verse stands, as it were, absolutely. And as to that which thou sowest — thou sotoest not the body that shall be. That is, you do not sow the plant, but the bare grain, i. e. the simple, naked grn — it may be of wheat, or of some other grain. The point of the illustration is, that what comes up is very different from that which is deposited in the ground. Tou sow a seed, a plant appears. You sow a natural, corruptible body; a spiritual, incorruptible body appears. Nature itself therefore teaches that the objection that the future body must be. like the present, is of no force.

38. Bat God giveth it a body as it hath
him, and to every seed his own body,

“WTmt is deposited in the earth is very different from that vphich springa from it. Every seed produces its own plant. The product depends on the will of God. It was dcterndned at the creation, and therefore the apostle says that God, in the continual agency of his providence, gives to each seed ita own appropiiate product, as he willed, i. e. he originally purposed. The point of this is, if God thus gives to all the products of the earth each its own form, why may he not detennine the foi-m in which the body is to appear at the resurrection? You cannot infer from looking at a seed what the plant is to be; it is very foolish, therefore, to attempt to determine ii-om our present bodies what is to be the nature of oui’ bodies hereafter.

39. All flesh (is) not the same flesh: but (there is) one (kind of) flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, (and) another of birds.

If even here, where the general conditions of life ai-e the same, “we see such diversity in animal organizations, fiesh and blood appearing in so many forms, why anould it be assumed that the body hereafter must be the same cumbrous vchiclo of the soul that it is now?

40. (There are) also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial (is) one, and ‘;he (glory) of the terrestrial (is) another.

There is no limit to be set to the possible or actual modifications of matter. We not only see it in all the diversified forms of animal and vegetable life, but in the still gi’eater diversities of heavenly and eai’tbly bodi. What Paul here means by bodies celestial, is doubtful. 1, Many suppose the reference is to angels, either on the assumption that they too have bodies, or that the apostle refei-s to the forms in which they appear to men. When they become visible they must assume some material vehicle, which was always luminous or glorious. Of the angel who appeared at the sepulchre of Christ it is said, “His countenance was like lightning, and his foment wMte as snow,” Matt. 28, 3. There is a gi’cat contrast between the bodies of these celestial being a and those of men. 2. Others suppose that the reference is to the bodies of the saints in heaven. There are many kinds of bodies here on earth, and there are also celestial as well as ten-esti-ial bodies. The one differing fi’om the other in glory. 3. The common opinion is that the apostle means what is now generally meant by “the heavenly bodies,” viz., the sun, moon and stars. To this it is objected that it is to make the apostle use the language of modern astronomy. This, however, has little force; for whatever the ancients conceived the eun, moon and stars to he, they regarded them as bodies, and need the word trS/ia in reference to them or to the nniverse. Galen, who was born not more than sixty or seventy years after the date of this epistle, uses nearly the same language as the apostle does. He too contrasts ret Sym crdra Jmeaning the sun, moon and stars,) with rh. fqiva o-io/iaro. See Wetstein. The common interpretation is also sustained by the context, for the san, moon and stars mentioned in the next verse are evidently included in the heavenly bodies here intended,

41. (There is) one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and ajiother glory of the stars; for (one) star differeth from (another) star in glory.

Hot only do the heavenly bodies differ from the earthly bodies in giory, but there is great diversity among the heavenly bodies themselves. How different is the sun from the moon, the moon from the stars, and even one star from another. Standing, therefore, as we do in the midst of this wonderful universe, in which we see matter in every conceivable modification, from a clod of earth to a sunbeam, from dost to the lustre of the human eye, how unutterably absurd is it to say that if we ai’e to have bodies hereafter, they must be as gross, Mid heavy, and as con-uptible as those which we have now.

43. So also (is) the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption;

So also is the restirreolion of the dead. That is, as the heavenly bodies differ ii-om the earthly bodies, and as one star differs from another star, so the resuiTection body will differ li-om our present body. The apostle does not mean that as 3iie star differs from another star in glory, so one risen believer will differ from another. This, no doubt, is true; but it is not what Paul here says or intimates. TTia object is simply to show the absurdity of tho objection founded on the assumption that the body hereafter must be what it is here. He shows that it may be a body and yet differ as much from what it is now as the light of the sun differs from a piece of clay. He therefore proceeds to show wherein this difference consists. The body ia sown in corruption; it is raised in inoorruption. The figure of the seed is again introduced. The bodies of the saints are as seed sown in the ground, not there to be lost or to remain; but at the appointed time, to rise in a state the veiy reverse of that in which they were committed to the dust. It is sown, in carnation, i. e. it is now a cori’uptible body, coDstantly tending to decay, subject to disease and death, and destined to entire dissolution. It is raised in incorruption. Hereafter it will be imperishable; fi-eo from, all impui-ity, and incapable of decay.

43. 44. It is sown in dishonour, it is raised iii glory: it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power: it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. The apostle contemplates the body as at the moment of interment, and therefore these predicates are to be understood with special reference to its condition at that tim.o. It is the dead body that is sown in dishonoar, despoiled of the short-lived attractiveness which it had while living, It is rMsed in, glory, L e. in that resplendent brightness which diffuses light and awakens admiration. It is to be fashioned like unto the glorious body of the Son of God, Hiil. 3, 21. It is sown in weakness. Nothing is more absolutely powerless than a corpse — it can do nothing and it can resist nothing. The wealmess which belonged to it in life, is perfected in death. It is raised in power. The future body wilt be instinct with energy, endowed, it may be, with fecalties of which we have now no conception. It is sown a Tuttural body, it ia raised a spiritual body. This comprehends all that has been said. A natural body, u-Gjiia tftuxtKof, is a body of wMcb the i/™x, or animal life, is the animating principle; and a spiritual body, aSt/m TrviofiariKov, ia a body adapted to tho -nvcviia, the rational, immortal principle of our nature. We know from experience what a natural body is. It is a body which has essentially the same properties as those of brutes. A natural body consists of flesh and blood; is susceptible of pain and decay; and needs air, food, and rest. It is a more animal body, adapted to the conditionsi of an earthly existence. What a spiiitual body is, ^’e know only from Paul’s description, and from the manifestation of Christ in his glorified body. We know that it is incorruptible, glorious, and powerful, adapted to the higher state of existence in heaven, and therefore not adapted to an earthly condition. Spiritual, in this connection, does not mean ethereal, refined, ra.ach less made of spirit, which would be a contradiction. Nor does it mean animated by the Holy Spirit. Bat as ftoiiia ijrvxtKov is a body, adapted to the ^uxv or principle of animal life, the a&iia TrvEv/HXTutov is a body adapted to the Trvtuiia or principle of rational life. The Bible uses these terms just as we do, without intending to teach that the ljnpx or li/e, is a distinct substance or subject from the jrv^B/ui or rational spirit, but only that as we have certsun attributes, considered as living creatures, in common with irrational animals, so we have now a body suited to those attributes; and, on the other hand, as we have attributes unspeakably higher than those which belong to bmtes, we shall hereafter possess bodies adapted to those higher attributes. The Bible recognises in man only two subjects or distinct separable substances, the soul and body. And this has ever been a fundamental principle of Christian anthropology.

JKo’e is a natural io, ana there is a spiritual body. This is a vindication of the apparently contraiBctory expression, ritual body, which, according to the letter, is tantamount to immaterial matter. It, however, it is proper to speak of irui/ia ^tvxikov, a natural body, i. e. a body adapted to the principle of animal life; it is right to speak of a a-SiiiawveviiaTiKoy, a spiritual body, i, e. a body adapted to the spirit. Laohmann, Rtickert, and TischendorfJ ailev the ancient M8S. mid versions, adopt the reading ei erri, k.t.X. J^ there is a natural body, there is a spiritual body, Jast as certainly as we have a body adapted to our lower nature, we shall have one adapted to our higher natui-e. If the one exists, so does the other.

45. And so it is written. The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam (was made) a quickening spirit.

So it is written, i. a. the Scriptures are in aflcordanoo with the preceding representation. They represent Adam as having been created with an animal nature, and thei’efore as having an animal body. Whereas, the second Adam is a person of a fiir higher order. The proof lritli regard to the nature of Adam does not rest exclusively on the words quoted, but on the whole account of his creation, of which those words form a part. It is evident from the entire histoi-y, that Adam was formed for an existence on this eaith, and therefore with a body adapted to the present state of being; in its essential attributes not differing from those which we have inherited from him. He was indeed created immortal. Had he not sinned, he would not have been subject to death. For death is the wages of sin. And as Paul elsewhere teaches, death is by sin. From what the apostle, however, here say a of the contrast between Adam and Christ; of the eai-thly and perishable nature of the former as opposed to the immortal, spiritual nature of the latter, it is plain that Adam as originally created was not, as to hie body, in that state which would fit him for his immortal existence. After his period of probation was passed, it is to be inferred, that a change in him would have taken place, analogous to that which is to talie place in those believers who shall be alive when Christ comes. They shall not die, but they shall be changed. Of this change in the constitution of his body, the tree of life was probably constituted the sacrament. For when he sinned, he was excluded from the gai’den of Eden, “lest he put forth his hand and take of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever,” Gen. 3, 22. Some change, therefore, was to take place in his body, to adapt it to live for ever. J5e was made a living soid, ^VCT’ ^uiaav. He had a ixi ^“”i therefore a body adapted to it. Both the Greek word x *^6 corresponding Hebrew term are frequently used for the immortal principle of our nature — the rational soul — but they also, and perhaps m<^ frequently, mean life in that foma. which we have in comniop with other animals. This idea is included in the passag* quoted from Genesis. It is to bo remembered that the quotations given in the New Testament from the Old Testament are not mere quotations, but authoritative expositions, Pau’ tells us what the Spirit of God meant, when he caUcd Adam a living soul.

The last Adam, i. e. Christ. This was not an unusual designation for the Messiah among the Jews, though not found in Scripture elsewhere than here. The appropriateness of the designation is evident. Chnst is the second great head and representative man, of whom Adam is declared to have been the tyjie, Bom, 5, 14, Was made a quichening spirit. Adam was ui his distinctive character, that is, as distinguished from Christ, an animal — a creature endowed with animal life, whereas Chi-ist has life in Mmseli; and can give life to as many as he will, John 5, 21. 26. This does not of course mean that Adam had nothing more than animal life. It does not deny that he had a rational and immortal soul. Neither does it imply that our Lord had not, while on earth, a x or principle of life in common with ns. The apostle simply contrasts the first and second Adam as to theii- distinguishing characteristics. The one was a man; the other infinitely more.

There are two questions suggested by this passage. The first is, on what ground does the apostle assert that Christ was made a quickening spirit? When he says, at the henning of the verse, “So it is written,” does he intend to appeal to the support of Scripture not only for what he says of the nature of Adam, but also for what he say a of the person of Christ? If so, the proof cannot rest on the passage quoted, for that relates exclusively to Adam. If the apostle intended to cite the Scriptures for both parts of the declaration in the preceding verse, “there ia a natural body, and there is a spiritual body,” he must mean the Scriptures in express terms declare Adimi to have had a living soul, and they set forth Christ as a life-^ving Spirit. It is more commonly assumed, however, that the qootation is limited to the first clause. ‘The Scriptures say that the first Adam “was made a Kving soul;” the last Adam (we know) was made a life-giving Spirit.’

The second question is. When w Christ made a quickening spirit? The apostle does not refer to what Chnst was before his incarnation, but to what he became. The subject of discourse ia, the last Adam. When did he become a quickening spirit t Some say at his incarnation. This is undoubtedly true. As the incarnate Son of God he was life-giving. “It pleased the Father that he should have life in himself,” John 5, 26. That is, that the divine and hmnan nature should be muted in his person. And in this constitution of his person it was already determined that, although while on earth he should have a body fike our own, yet his whole person, including ’ his true body and reasonable soul,’ should be adapted to sit at the right hand of God, Adam was first formed for this eai-th, and had an earthljr body; tho person of Christ was coDSlJtuted in reference to his reigning ia heaven, and therefore he has a spiritual body. The apostle argues from the nature of Adam to the nature of his body; and from tho nature of Christ to the nature of his body. This argument does not involve the assumption that the body of Christ was here a spiritual one — for we know that it was flesh and blood; but that such was the state to which, from the very constitution of his person, he was d-^stined, a spiritual body alone could be suited to him. The I’^t Adam, tnerefore, was made a joictening spirit, by the vwon of the divine with the human in the constitution of his person. Others say that it was at his resurrection; and ot’inro, at hia ascension. As to the former opinion, it is enougl’. to say, that no change took place at his resurrection in the nature of Christ’s body. It was necessary in order to its F’rtisfactory identification that it should remain the same thrt it was before. He therefore not only called upon his disciples to handle his risen body and to satisfy themselves o’ its identity by probing the wounds in his hands and feet, b-it he also repeatedly ate before them. He did not assume /lis pennanent pneumatic state until his ascension. But this i’i not make him a quickening spirit. It only affected his ndj, which then assumed the state adapted to its condit’jr in heaven,

46. Howbeit that (was) not first which is spiritual, hv’. that which is natural; and afterward that which is p.piritual.

This does not mean simply that the natural body precodos tho spiritual bodi/. But it announces, as it were, a general law. The lower precedes the higher; the imperfect the per- ■’ect. This is true in all the works of God, in which there is a development. Adam’s earthly state was to be preparatory to a heavenly one. The present life ia like a seed time, the har- ■’est is hereafter. The natural comes before the spiritual; as Calvm says, we are born before we are regenerated, we live oefore we rise.

47. The first man (is) of the earth, earthy: the
second man (is) the Lord from heaven.

TTie general principle stated in the preceding verse, that the natural precedes the epiritual, is here illustrated ty the laet that Adam came before Christ, The first man was of Che earth, i.e. formed out of the earth, and therefore earthy. The aeoond man is the LorAfrom, heaven. Here the text is doubtful. The aathoritiea are about equally divided for and against the reading 5 ku/iioi, the Lord, The sentence is more simple if that -word be omitted. ‘The first man was fi-om the earth; the second man was from heaven.’ If the common test be retEuned, the word JLord, is in apportion with the words the second man, ‘The second man, the Lord, was from heaven.’ This passage was used by the early heretics of the Gnostic school to sustain their docti-ine that our Lord was not really born of the Virgin Maiy, but was clothed in a body deiived from heaven, in opposition to whom the early creeds declare that he was as to his human nature consabstantlal with man, and as to his divine nature consubstantial with God, The text, however, simply asserts the heavenly oiig of Christ. Adana was of the earth; Christ was from he.aven; comp. John 8, 13, Adam, therefore, had a body suited to the earth; Christ has a body suited to heaven.

48. Aa (is) the earthy, such (are) they also that are earthy; and as (is) the heavenly, such (are) they also that are heavenly.

The earthy is of course Adam; the;/ that are earthy, are his descendants. The heavenly is Christ; they that are heavenly are his risen people. The descendants of Adam derive from him an earthly body like his. Those who are Christ’s are to have a body fashioned like unto his glorious body, Phil. S, 21.

49. And as we have borne the image of the earthy,
we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

In this passage, instead of the future ^opeVonEv, we shall bear, the great majority of the oldest MSS. read the conjunctive ^fyjt’crM/ief, let us hear. The context, however, so evidently demands the future, that the common reading is preferred by almost all editors. An exhortation here would be entirely out of place. The apostle is evidently proceeding with his discussion. He ia obviating the objection to the doctrine of the resurrection founded on the assumption that our bodies hereafter arc to be of the same Mad as those which we have here. This is BOt so. They are to be like the body of Christ. As we have borne the image of Adam as to his body, we shall bear the image of Christ as to hia body. The idea that as we have derived a corrupt nature from Adam, we derive a holy nature from Christ, though true in itself, is altogether foreign to the connection.

50, Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incoiTuption.

This I say. These words admit of three interpretations. 1, They mbe understood conceively. ‘This! concede, brethren, I admit that flesh and blood, our bodies as now organized, cannot inherit the kingdom of God. But that ia not what I teach when I preach the doctrine of the resurrection. Our bodies are to be changed.’ 2. The sense may be, ‘This is what I aay, the sum of what I have said is that flesh and blood,’ dfcc. 3. The words may mean, ‘This I assei-t, brethren. I assure you of this feet, that flesh and blood,’ <feo. In 7, 29 the expression is used in this sense, Comp. also Rom. 8, 8 and 1 Cor. 10, 18.

Flesh and blood means our body as now constituted, not sinful human nature. The phrase never has this latter sense. In Heb. 2, 14, it is said, “Inasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he (Christ) also himself likewise took part of the same,” Matt. 16, 17. Gal. 1, 16. Eph. 6, 12. It ia mdeed true, that our unsanctifled nature, or imi-enewed man, cannot inherit the kingdom of God. But that is not what the apostle ia speaking about. He is speaking of the body and of its state after the resurrection. It is of the body as now constituted that he says, it cannot inherit the Mngdom of heaven, i. e. the kingdom of Christ as it is to exist alter the resurrection. Matt, 8, 11. Luke 13, 28. 1 Cor. 6, 9. Gal. 5, 21. 2 Tim. 4, 18, The same idea is repeated in abstract tei-ms and as a genei-al proposition in the next clause, neithen- can corruplion inherit ineorruption. The mortal cannot be immortal; the perishable imperishable. Incorniption cannot be an attribute of corruption. Our bodies, therefore, if they are to be immortal and imperishable must be changed. And this the apostle in the next verse amiounces on the authority of a direct revelation, is actually to occur.

51. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not
all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

A mysteey; Bomething revealed, and wliicli could not otherwise be known. Matt, 13, 11. 1 Cor. 4, I, and often elsewJiere. What is here expressed by saying, I show you a mystery, is in 1 Thess. 4, 15 expressed by saying, ‘This I say unto yon by the word of the Lord i e. by divine revelation. The revelation which Paul now declares, and to which he calls special attention by the word, Behold! is, that all ai-e not to e, bat all are to be changed, i. e. so changed that their corruptible body shall be rendered incorrnptible. The common text is, xaiTw h, oh Koi/iijSi/trdjiifcSa, the negative being connected with the verb, so that the literal sense would be, oH are not to die. This is said of all whom Paul addressed. The apostle tells them all that they are not to die. To avoid this impossible sense, for Paul certainly did not. mean to assure the Corinthians that it had been revealed to him that none of them should die, most of the older commentators assume in common with our translators a not unnsual trajection of the negative particle, Travrw ov standing for av Travtes. Others explain the verse thus: ‘We all — shall indeed not die before the resurrection) — but we shall all be changed.’ It is ssad this is contrary to the context, inasmuch as heing changed is sometiling peculiar to those who should be alive at the coming of Christ, and is not affii’med of the dead. This, however, is contrary to the lact. Paul had said, v. 50, that flesh and blood could not inherit the kingdom of God. All, therefore, who enter that kingdom, whether they die before the second advent or survive the coming of Christ, must be changed. Aud that is the feet which Paul says had been revealed to bun. Those who ^od before the advent would not fail of the blessings of Christ’s kingdom, and those who should bo alive when he came, would not be left in their corruptible bodies. Both should be changed, and thus prepared for the heavenly state.*

* The difficulty, howerar, attending tho common test, has given rise to a G;reat variety tf reading a in the MSS. and Tersions. A. C. F. G. have -ripmjxiv KDiMijaiiiriif&a, ob wttn-et Si aKlaytlilina, vx ihail indeed all die, bat Ke shali Hot a(i 6« chansed. D. and tUe Vulgat« have; Trimts fiiii araaTJinS’ ihSu, oii nrin-tr BJ iAAoTTio-dntSa. we ihall all rise,iiil we slmllnol aUle (Ranged. Tliete ai-B aaveral l”,as important variations. These are all explained as at. tempts on flie part of trnnacribBTs to escape making the apostle say that tlia Cliristinns of at generation wore not to die. Bnt as the common texi docs not nmlte him aay that, there is no nocoBsitj for deputing iirom it;

Ooiiip. 1 Thess. i, 15-17. The modern commentator a, both German and English, understand the apoatle as expressing the confident expectation that he and others of that generation should survive the coming of Christ. ‘Though we (who are now alive) shall not all die, we shall all be changed.’ But 1. This is altogether unnecessary. The we all includes all believers who had lived, were living, or ever should live. There is nothhig either in the form of expression or in the context to limit it to the men of that generation. In the same way Paul says in 1 Thess. 4, 15, “We that are alive at the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them that are asleep.” This does not imply that he expected to be alive when Ohi-ist came. In his second Epistle to the Thesisalonians he warns them against the expectation of the speedy advent of Christ, telling them that a gi-eat apostasy and the revelation of the Man of Sin were to occur before that event. 2. The plenary inspiration of the sa«red writers rendered them inMlible in all they taught; but it did not render them omniscient. They could not err in what they communicated, but they might err, and doubtless did err, as to things not included in the communications of the Spiiit. The time of the second advent was not revealed to them. They profess their ignoi-ance on that point. They were, therefore, as to that matter, on a level with other men, and may have differed in regard to their private conjectures on the subject just as others differ. It would not, in the least, therefore, encroach on their authority as iniaUible teacher’s, if it should be apparent that they cherished erroneous expectations with regard to that about which they professed to know nothing. Eiowing that Christ was to come, and not knowing when ne was to come, it was perfectly natural that they should look on Ms advent as constantly imminent, until it was revealed that certiun events not yet accomplished, were to occur before Christ came. But all this is verj’ different from any didactic statement that he was to come within a certiun period. Paul might exhort Christiana to wait and long for the coming of the Lord; but he could not tell them bi, the word of the Lord that he and others then living would be alive when he came. This would not only be teaching error, but it would be claiming divine authority, or a special revelation, for that error. It is, therefore, only at the expense of all confidence in the inspiration of the apostle that the exposition above mentioned can bo adopted.

52. In a moment, in the twinlding of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incomiptible, and we shall be changed. The change In qixcstion is to “be instantaneous; in a moment, literally, an atom, L e. in a portion of time so short aa to be incapable of farther division. It is to take place at the last trump, L e. on the last day. As the trumpet was used for assembling the people or niarshalling a host, it became the symbol for expreaang the idea of the gathering of a multitude. So, in Matt. 24,31, Chiist says, “He will send bis angels with a great sound of a trumpet; and they shall gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to another,” Comp. Is. 27, 13, 1 Thess. 4, 16. This trumpet is called the last, not because several trumpets (the Jews say seven) are to sound in succession, but because it is the last that ever ia to sound. In other words, the resun-ection is to take place on the last ds«-. For the trumpet shall sound. This is a confii-mation of the preceding. That day shall surely come — the voice of the archangel, the tramp of God, shall certainly resonnd as it did from Sinai, Ex, 19, 16. And, i, e. and then, in consequence of the summons of God, the dead shall be raised in the manner described in vs. 42. 43, incorruptible, glorious and powerful. And we shall be changed. This is in exact accordance with 1 Thess. 4, 15. Those who are alive when Christ comes “shall not prevent them which are asleep.” The dead in Christ shall rise first, and then the living shall undergo their instantaneous change. As remarked on the preceding verse, it is not necessary to understand the apostle as including himself and fellow believera in Corinth, when he says We shall be changed. The connection indeed is different here from what it ia there. There he says, “We shall not all die.” If that means that the men of that generation should not all die, it is a positive assertion of what the event has proved to be false. But here he simply sm’s, all who are alive when Christ comes shall be changed. If he hofied that he might bo of the number there would be nothing in that expectation inconsistent with his inspiration, Calvin, therefore, so understands the passage.* Consideiing, however, hia ex-

* QnuDi autcm dicit, jVbs immatahimvr in eonim iiumero se coiiipreiiaiidit qui victuri sunt ad Christi adventam; quouiam jam erant postrema tompora, expechuduB fult Si-^s ills In ungulaa lioras. press teaching in 2 Thess. 2, 2-12 on the subject, it is far more natural to Tinderetand him ae contemplating the vast company of believers as a whole, and sajdng ‘Those of us who are dead shall rise, and all who are alive shall be changed.’

53. Por tl)is corruptible mtist put on iacorruption, and this mortal (must) put on immortality.

This ia the reason why we must be changed. ‘We must all be changed, for this corruptible must put on incorruption.’ It is impossible that corruption should inherit incorruption. This reason applies equally to the quick and to the dead. With regard to both classes it is true that these vile bodies must be fashioned like unto Christ’s glorious body,

54. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is svrallowed up in victory.

When the change above described has been accomplished, when once the resurrection has taken place, then, according to the language of Scripture, death shall be completely conquered. Not only shall those over whom he had triumphed, and whom be had so long detained in the prison of the grave, be delivered from his power, but there shall be no more death. The parage quoted is Isaiah 25, 8, “He will swallow up death in victory.” In Hebrew the last words mean literally for ever. They are, however, frequently translated by the LXX. as they are here rendered by the apostle. Tho sense is the same. The victory over death is to be complete and final.

65. O death, where (is) thy sting? O grave,
where (is) thy victory?

The apostle places himself and his readers in presence of the Saviour and of the risen dead arrayed in immortality; and in view of that majestic scene he breaks out in these words of triumph: ‘Christ has conquered. His people are redeemed. Death is disai-med. Hades is no more.’ Death is addressed under the figure of an animal armed with a poisonous sting which pierces even to the soul; for that sting is dn. The grave, or me Greek word Hades, means, what is uneceti, the invlnhh worM, the abode of the dead in the ivideat sense. It depends on the context whether the immediate reference be to the grare, the place of departed spirits, or hell, in the modern sense of that word. Here where the spscid reference is to the todies of men and to the delivery of them from the power of death, it is properly rendered the grave. The only sense in which the body can he in Hades is that it is in the grave. The apostle is not speaking of the delivery of the souls of men from any intermediate state, but of the redemption of the body. In Hosea 13, 14 God says, “O death, I ^nll be thy plagues; O gi-ave, I will be thy destruction.” This is a literal version of the Hebrew. The Vulgate comes near to it, Ero moi-s tua, mors! Morsns tnua ero, infeme! The LXX. depart from the figure, “Where is thy judgment (or vengeance), death? where is thy sting, O grave?” These are all different forms of expressing the idea that death and the grave are completely conquered. The apostle does not quote the prophet. He e3q)re8sea an analogous idea in analogous terms. In speaking of death as furnished with a sting, the most natural figure is that of a scorpion. Others say that Kivrpov here means a goad, and that death is compared to a man driving animals before him with sach an instrument. The power of a goad is as nothing to that of the sting of a scorpion. Rev. 9, 5, 6. 10, and the figure ia therefore far more forcible as commonly understood.*

56. The sting of death (is) sin; and the strength
of sin (is) the law.

The sting of death is sin,; that is, death would have no power to injure us if it were not for sin. This is true for two reasons, 1, Because if there were no sin there would be no death. Death is by sin, Rom. 6, 12. 2. Because sin gives death, when it has been introduced, all its terrors. If sin be pardoned, death is harmless. It can inflict no evil. It becomes a mere transition from a lower to a higher state. The strength of sin is the law. This must be the law of God in its widest sense; not the Mossac law, wMoh would make the declaration amount to nothing, Tho law is the strength of

“The MSS. B. D. E, F. G., and moat of the TerdonB, reed, iroB -rod, Uva-T?, ri tivrpof; iroi* aoVj Stii’ftTf, t?> j-rKus; Ichere dpatli, is 1h slmg 9 where death, (by viclmg? A leading wLioh Tischenilfiif imd other modern ediCoca have adopted. sin for two reasons. 1. Because -without law there would be 110 sin, Rom. 4, IS. The veiy idea of sin ia want of confoi-mity on the part of moral creatures to the law of God, If there be no standard to which we are bound to be confornaed, there can be no such thing as want of conformity. Sin ia the correlative, not of reason, nor of expediency, but of law. If you take away law, men may act nnreasonably, or in a way injurious to themaelvea or others, but they cannot an. 2. Because if there be no law there can be no condemnation. Sin is not imputed where there ia no law, Rom. 5, 13, There is stili another reason, which, though presented elsewhere by the apostle, is foreign to this connection, and that is, that the law not only reveals and condemns sin, but it exasperates and excites it, and thus wes it strength, Rom, 7, 8-13.

57. But tliauks (be) to Goil, wMcli giveth us the
victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

The victory here meant is, of course, the victory over death and the grave. Thanks be to God, who delivers iis from the power of death, redeeming even our bodies from the grave, and making us pai-takers of everlasting life. This ia done through Jesus Christ our Lord, i, e. our divine possessor and absolute ruler. It is through him, and through him alone. 1. Because he has satisfied the demands of the law. Ithaano power to condemn those who are clothed in his righteousness. There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, Rom. 8, I. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justiSeth, who is he that condemneth? Rom. 8, 33. 34. Christ by his death hath destroyed him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and delivered them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage, Heb. 3, U. 15, That is, in virtue of the death of Christ, by which the demands of justice are satisfied, Satan, the great executioner of divine justice, has no longer the right or power to detiun the people of Christ imder the power of death. If, therefore, it be the law which gives sin its reality and strength, and if sin gives death its sting, he who satisfies the law destroys the strength of sin, and consequently the sting of death. It is thus that Christ deprives death of all power to injure his people. It is for them disarmed and rendered as harmless as an infent. 2. But Christ not only gives us this victory through his justifying righteousness, but by his iilmiglity power, he new creates the soul after the image of God, and, what is here principally intended, he repairs all the evils which death Lad inflicted. He restores us to that state, and even to more than that state, from which sin had cast us down. He rescues our bodies from the grave, and fashions them, like unto his glorious hody, even by that power whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himseli; Phil. 3, 21. Had it not been for Christ, death would have reined for ever over our fe,llen race; but thanks be to God, Christ hath given us the victory; so that the believer may even now say, death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

58. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

Such being the truth and importance of the doctrine of the resurrection. Christians should be firm in their adherence to it, not suffering themselves to be moved by the specious objections of philosophy fiJaely so called. They should remember that if the dead rfee not, then is Christ not risen; and if Chi-ist be not risen, their faith is vain, and they are yet in the power of sin. But as Christ has risen, and as his resurrection illustrates and renders certain that of his people, what more natural and proper than that they should abound in the work of the Lord, The leorlc of the Lord is either that work in which the Lord is engaged, Uie destruction of death by destroying sin; or, it is the work which the Lord has given us to do, as parents and children, as husbands and wives, as ministers and Chiistians. In this work we should aboimd, i. e. be abundant. As Paul says, 2 Cor, 11, 23, “In labours more abundant.” Forasmuch as ye Jcnow that ymiir labour is not in vain in the Lord. This with Paul was more than fsdth; it was knowledge. He knew that labour in the work of the Lord would not be m vain. The reward secured for it by the grace of God and merit of Christ is pai-ticipation of the glories ol’ a blessed resurrection.

I. CORli^THIANS 16.