« PreviousContinue »
his coming," for the fulfilment of which event we still look. Then, we are told, cometh the end-when? When Christ the first fruits are brought, or when they that are his at his coming? I conceive there is no necessity of understanding either of those periods the fixed time, when Christ delivers up his kingdom. The word then* in the 24th verse, in the original, expresses, more definitely, a posterior date than the original in the 23d verse, translated afterward.t It ought evidently to have read afterward or after that. The Apostle seems to add the 25th verse, as if pur. posely to guard against the error of synchro nizing events, that ought to be undersood to be separate. "For he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet."
The resurrection of Christ the first fruits, and of them that are his at his coming, are events which we consider very distant from each other in point of time; yet they are as closely connected, if not more so, in the sentence that expresses them, as the resurrection of them that are Christ's, and his delivering of the kingdom to the Father. This appears plain by reading the text according to the criticism which I have indulged upon it, and which, I trust, is too evident to be disputed. "But every man in his own order; Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at
his coming. After that will be the end" (in lica of then cometh the end) "when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father."
In the fourth place, we will attend to the question, "With what body do they come ?" St. Paul, after addressing us with a boldness that would be indecorous from one of less authority, invites our attention to the field of natyre. "That which thou sowest is not quickened except it die. And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but naked grain, it may chance of wheat or of some other grain. But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body." One would naturally suppose from the description of the Apostle's, that the present body sown in death arises in a similar manner to wheat or some other grain that is sown; and, as every seed produces its own body, it takes in the resurrection a body of flesh and bones by the power of God, as the physical produce of the original body, which was sown in death. However embarrassed we may be in comparing this idea with what the Apostle has elsewhere expressed, still we know not, that we shall hardly be able to discover any sense to his words, if this be not his meaning. He says, "So also is the resurrection of the dead." Then he adds; "It is sown in corruption; it is raised in in
GUMNON KOKKON, nudum granum.
corruption it is sown in dishonor; it is raised in 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.” Our present bodies are accounted corruptible; and specially so, when sown in death. Grain is made corruptible, when it is sown, and by a quickening power, may it not be said to arise to an incorruptible state? It undoubtedly approaches as near it, as any earthly thing to which is given a resuscitating power. When kept from too much moisture, it retains its virtue and life. It has, likewise, a spírituous property. In this its most perfect state, I think St. Paul meant to represent it as a figure of the spiritual body; and, in its corrupted state, sown in the surface of the earth, a figure of the natural body. Then the grain is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption it is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power it is sown an animal body,* or a body possessing life, though itself corrup tible; it is raised a spiritual body; that is, a body incorruptible, retaining the spirit and essence of the grain. "So also," says the Apostle, "is the resurrection of the dead." Man is sownt in corruption; he is raised in incorruption he is sown in dishonor; he is
* SOMA PSUCHIKON, corpus animale.
The original of these verbs have no nominative case expressed.
raised in glory he is sown in weakness; he is raised in power: he is sown an animal body,* or a body with a soul an undying property; he is raised a spiritual body.
When our Savior arose from the dead, he arose with a body of flesh and bones. As his flesh saw no corruption, the same body was quickened, with its natural features, no doubt, and the scars of his crucifixion. This was the resurrection of Christ, who is the first fruits of them that slept, the head of every man, the whole body, the church. Was this raised body of his with flesh and bones, a spiritual body? or was it what is called a natural body? With this body he appeared to his disciples, in a house, when the doors were shut. It may be remarked also that before his resurrection, he passed through a multitude unperceived, when they had led him to the brow of a hill to cast him down headlong.
From the analogy of things, used in scripture, and from the resemblance of our divine head in his resuscitated state, the argument is greatly in favor of the idea, that mankind will arise in bodies of flesh and bones. Without this conclusion much of the Apostle's reasoning conveys to us no rational ideas. But then, we are told that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. If a resurrection in bodies of flesh and bones,
SOMA PSUCHIKON, corpus animale.
mean the same as flesh and blood which cannot inherit the kingdom of God, are we not now brought into difficulty? We undoubtedly are, if the resurrection, in its first process, introduce us to a state of full perfection, or to a state that admits ho sort of change. If Christ arose with a body of flesh and bones, as he himself asserts, was that "his glorious body" or was his resuscitated body changed? And if his body were changed, is it unreasonable to suppose the raised bodies of men may be changed in a manner, similar to their divine head? "The first man," says the Apostle, "is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly."
The question will now be asked, can an incorruptible or immortal body be changed? In reply to this, let other questions be proposed. Was Christ's resuscitated body corruptible or mortal? No; for it never corrupted, nor died. Did he or can he never change it? If not, he must forever have flesh and bones. Flesh is one of the articles, which St. Paul said could not inherit the kingdom of God. We may, therefore, conclude it is not a composition of Christ's glorious body. Then we in travelling with our divine head, are "to look for the Savior, the