Study

35. How will they be raised up? There is nothing that is more at variance with human reason than this article of faith. For who but God alone could persuade us that bodies, which are now liable to corruption, will, after having rotted away, or after they have been consumed by fire, or torn in pieces by wild beasts, will not merely be restored entire, but in a greatly better condition. Do not all our apprehensions of things straightway reject this as a thing fabulous, nay, most absurd? ¹⁰⁰¹⁰⁰     “Comme la plus grande absux, dite du monde;” — “As the greatest absurdity in the world.” Paul, with the view of removing entirely this appearance of absurdity, makes use of an anhypophora, ¹⁰¹¹⁰¹     See Calvin on the Corinthians, vol. 1, p. 281, n. 1. that is, he brings forward by way of objection, in the person of another, what appears at first view to be at variance with the doctrine of a resurrection. For this question is not that of one who inquires doubtingly as to the mode, but of one who argues from impossibility — that is, what is said as to the resurrection is a thing incredible. Hence in his reply he repels such an objection with severity. Let us observe, then, that the persons who are here introduced as speaking, are those who endeavor to disparage, in a way of scoffing, a belief in the resurrection, on the ground of its being a thing that is impossible.

36. Thou fool, that which thou sowest The Apostle might have replied, that the mode, which is to us incomprehensible, is nevertheless easy with God. Hence, we must not here form our judgment according to our own understanding, but must assign to the stupendous and secret power of God the honor of believing, that it will accomplish what we cannot comprehend. He goes to work, however, in another way. For he shows, that the resurrection is so far from being against nature, that we have every day a clear illustration of it in the course of nature itself — in the growth of the fruits of the earth. For from what but from rottenness spring the fruits that we gather out of the earth? For when the seed has been sown, unless the grains die, there will be no increase. Corruption, then, being the commencement and cause of production, we have in this a sort of picture of the resurrection. Hence it follows, that we are beyond measure spiteful and ungrateful in estimating the power of God, if we take from him what is already manifest before our eyes.

37. Thou sowest not that body that will spring up. This comparison consists of two parts — first, that it is not to be wondered that bodies rise from rottenness, inasmuch as the same thing takes place as to seed; and secondly, that it is not at variance with reason, that our bodies should be restored in another condition, since, from bare grain, God brings forth so many ears of corn, clothed with admirable contrivance, and stored with grains of superior quality. As, however, he might seem to intimate, by speaking in this way, that many bodies will therefore rise out of one, he modifies his discourse in another way, by saying that God forms the body as it pleases him, meaning that in that also there is a difference in respect of quality.

He adds, to every seed its own body By this clause he restricts what he had said respecting another body; for he says that, while the body is different, it is in such a way as to retain, nevertheless, its particular kind.

39. All flesh is not, etc. Here we have another comparison leading to the same conclusion, though there are some that explain it otherwise. For when he says, that under the name of flesh is comprehended the body of a man as well as of a beast, and yet the flesh in those two cases is different, he means by this that the substance indeed is the same, but there is a difference as to quality. The sum is this — that whatever diversity we see in any particular kind is a sort of prelude of the resurrection, because God clearly shows, that it is no difficult thing with him to renew our bodies by changing the present condition of things. ¹⁰²¹⁰²     “Nearly allied to these are the examples of peculiar transformations undergone by various insects, and the state of rest and insensibility which precede those transformations; such as the chrysalis or aurelia state of butterflies, moths, and silkworms. The myrmeleon forniicaleo, of whose larva, and its extraordinary history, Reaumur and Roesel have given accurate descriptions, continues in its insensible or chrysalis state about four weeks. The libellula, or dragon-fly, continues still longer in its state of inaction. Naturalists tell us that the worm repairs to the margin of its pond, in quest of a convenient place of abode, during its insensible state. It attaches itself to a plant, or piece of dry wood, and the skin, which gradually becomes parched and brittle, at last splits opposite to the upper part of the thorax: through this aperture the insect, now become winged, quickly pushes its way, and being thus extricated front confinement, begins to expand its wings, to flutter, and, finally, to launch into the air with that gracefulness and ease which are peculiar to this majestic tribe. Now who that saw, for the first time, the little pendant coffin in which the insect lay entombed, and was ignorant of the transformation of which we are now speaking, would ever predict that, in a few weeks, perhaps in a few days or hours, it would become one of the most elegant and active of winged insects? And who that contemplates, with the mind of a philosopher, this current transformation, and knows that two years before the insect mounts into the air, even while it is living in water, it has the rudiments of wings, can deny that the body of a dead man may, at some future period, be again invested with vigor and activity, and soar to regions for which some latent organization may have peculiarly fitted it?” — Olythus Gregory’s Letters on the Evidences of the Christian Religion, page 225. — Ed.

41. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon Not only is there a difference between heavenly bodies and earthly, but even the heavenly bodies have not all the same glory; for the sun surpasses the moon, and the other stars differ from each other. This dissimilarity, accordingly, appears ¹⁰³¹⁰³     “Ceste dinersite de qualite se monstre;” — “This difference of quality shows itself.” in the resurrection of the dead. A mistake, however, is commonly fallen into in the application; ¹⁰⁴¹⁰⁴     “En l’application de ceste similitude;” — “In the application of this similitude.” for it is supposed that Paul meant to say, that, after the resurrection, the saints will have different degrees of honor and glory. This, indeed, is perfectly true, and is proved by other declarations of Scripture; but it has nothing to do with Paul’s object. For he is not arguing as to what difference of condition there will be among the saints after the resurrection, but in what respect our bodies at present differ from those that we will one day receive. ¹⁰⁵¹⁰⁵     “Comment different nos corps que nons auons maintenant de ceux que nons aurons apres;” — “In what respect our bodies, which we have now, will differ from those that we shall have afterwards.”

He removes, then, every idea of absurdity, by instituting this comparison: The substance of the sun and moon is the same, but there is a great difference between them in point of dignity and excellence. Is it to be wondered, then, if our body puts on a more excellent quality? ¹⁰⁶¹⁰⁶     “Qu’il n’ha maintenant;” — “Than it has now.” “I do not teach that anything will take place at the resurrection but what is already presented before the eyes of all.” That such is the meaning of the words is clear from the context. For whence and for what purpose would Paul make such a transition, were he now comparing them with one another in respect of the difference of their condition, while up to this point he has been comparing the present condition of all with their future condition, and immediately proceeds with that comparison?

43. It is sown in corruption That there may be no doubt remaining, Paul explains himself, by unfolding the difference between their present condition, and that which will be after the resurrection. What connection, then, would there be in his discourse, if he had intended in the first instance ¹⁰⁷¹⁰⁷     “Au propos precedent;” — “In the foregoing statement.” to distinguish between the different degrees of future glory among the saints? There can, therefore, be no doubt, that he has been, up to this point, following out one subject. He now returns to the first similitude that he had made use of, but applies it more closely to his design. Or, if you prefer it, keeping up that similitude, he figuratively compares the time of the present life to the seed-time, and the resurrection to the harvest; and he says, that our body is now, indeed, subject to mortality and ignominy, but will then be glorious and incorruptible. He says the same thing in other words in Philippians 3:21

Christ will change our vile body,
that he may make it like to his own glorious body.

44. It is sown an animal body. As he could not express each particular by enumerating one by one, he sums up all comprehensively in one word, by saying that the body is now animal, ¹⁰⁸¹⁰⁸     “It is generally agreed on by the best expositors, that ψυχικὸς here, as being opposed to πευματικὸς, (spiritual,) especially as the expression is used with a reference to the words of Moses respecting the body of Adam, ἐγένετο εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν (became a living soul,) must signify animal, (literally that which draws in the breath of life, necessary to the existence of all animal bodies,) that which is endowed with faculties of sense, and has need of food, drink, and sleep for its support.” — Bloomfield. “Ψυχικὸν not φυσικὸν. (says Granville Penn,) and therefore not ‘naturale’ but ‘animale,’ as rendered in the Latin. Wiclif,” (he adds,) “strangely rendered, from the Vulg., ‘a beastli bodi,’ in correcting whom, our revisers would have done well to prefer ‘animal’ to ‘natural.’” — Ed. but it will then be spiritual. Now that is called animal which is quickened by (anima) the soul: that is spiritual which is quickened by the Spirit. ¹⁰⁹¹⁰⁹     “Au reste la ou nous traduisons, Sensuel, il y auroit a le tourner au plus pres du Grec, Animal: c’est a dire, gouuerne et viuifie de l’ame. Voyla donc que signifie Le corps sensuel. Le corps spirituel est celuy qui est viuifie de l’Esprit;” — “But what we translate sensual, might be rendered, more closely to the Greek, animal: that is to say, governed and quickened by the soul. Mark then what is meant by the sensual body. The spiritual body is that which is quickened by the Spirit.” Now it is the soul that quickens the body, so as to keep it from being a dead carcase. Hence it takes its title very properly from it. After the resurrection, on the other hand, that quickening influence, which it will receive from the Spirit, will be more excellent. ¹¹⁰¹¹⁰     “Sera vne chose beaucoup plus excellente;” — “Will be a thing much more excellent.” Let us, however, always bear in mind, what we have seen previously — that the substance of the body is the same, ¹¹¹¹¹¹     “La substance du corps sera tousiours vne;” — “The substance of the body will always be the same.” and that it is the quality only that is here treated of. Let the present quality of the body be called, for the sake of greater plainness, animation; ¹¹²¹¹²     “Animation, qui est nom descendant de ce mot Ame;” — “Animation, which is a name derived from this word Soul.” let the future receive the name of inspiration. For as to the soul’s now quickening the body, that is effected through the intervention of many helps; for we stand in need of drink, food, clothing, sleep, and other things of a similar nature. Hence the weakness of animation is clearly manifested. The energy of the Spirit, on the other hand, for quickening, will be much more complete, and, consequently, exempted from necessities of that nature. This is the simple and genuine meaning of the Apostle; that no one may, by philosophizing farther, indulge in airy speculations, as those do, who suppose that the substance of the body will be spiritual, while there is no mention made here of substance, and no change will be made upon it.

45. As it is written, The first Adam was made Lest it should seem to be some new contrivance as to the animal body, ¹¹³¹¹³     “Vne nouuelle imagination qu’il ait forgee;” — “A new fancy that he had contrived.” he quotes Scripture, which declares that Adam became a living soul, (Genesis 2:7) — meaning, that his body was quickened by the soul, so that he became a living man. It is asked, what is the meaning of the word soul here? It is well known, that the Hebrew word נפש, (nephesh,) which Moses makes use of, is taken in a variety of senses; but in this passage it is taken to mean either vital motion, or the very essence of life itself. The second of these I rather prefer. I observe that the same thing is affirmed as to beasts — that they were made a living soul, (Genesis 1:20, 24;) but as the soul of every animal must be judged of according to its kind, there is nothing to hinder that a soul, that is to say, vital motion, may be common to all; and yet at the same time the soul of man may have something peculiar and distinguishing, namely, immortal essence, as the light of intelligence and reason.

The last Adam. This expression we do not find anywhere written. ¹¹⁴¹¹⁴     “Ceci n’est point trouue en lieu quelconque de l’Escriture;” — “This is not found in any passage of Scripture.” Hence the phrase, It is written, must be understood as referring exclusively to the first clause; but after bringing forward this testimony of Scripture, the Apostle now begins in his own person to draw a contrast between Christ and Adam. “Moses relates that Adam was furnished with a living soul; Christ, on the other hand, is endowed with a life-giving Spirit. Now it is a much greater thing to be life, or the source of life, than simply to live.” ¹¹⁵¹¹⁵     “As it is said, Adam was at first a living soul, (‘So God breathed into him the breath of life,’ — that pure, divine, and heavenly breath,) ‘and he became a living soul;’ so, then to have asked the question, ‘What is man?’ must have been to receive the answer, ‘He is a living soul: he is all soul, and that soul all life.’ But now is this living soul buried in flesh, a lost thing to all the true, and great, and noble ends and purposes of that life which was at first given it. It is true, indeed, that this is a thing much less than what is said of the second Adam, in 1 Corinthians 15:45. ‘The first man Adam was made a living soul; the second Adam was a quickening Spirit.’ This latter is a great deal more. A living soul signified him to live himself; but a quickening spirit signifies a power to make others live. That the first Adam could not do; the more excellent kind of life which he had (for there was a complication of lives in the first creation of this man) he could not lose: but he could not give. He could not lose it from himself; but he could never have given it, by any power or immediate efficiency of his own, to another. Here the second Adam — the constitution of the second Adam — was far above that of the first, in that he could quicken others — a quickening spirit, not only quickened passively, but quickened actively, such a spirit as could give spirit, and diffuse life.” — Howe’s Works, (Lond. 1834,) page 1209. — Ed. It must be observed, however, that Christ did also, like us, become a living soul; but, besides the soul, the Spirit of the Lord was also poured-out upon him, that by his power he might rise again from the dead, and raise up others, This, therefore, must be observed, in order that no one may imagine, (as Apollinaris ¹¹⁶¹¹⁶     The views held by Apollinaris were as follows: “Christum corpus assumpsisse sine anima, quod pro anima ei fuerit deitas illudque corpus consubstantiale fuisse deitati, nec ex substantia Martin efformatum;” — “That Christ assumed a body without a stud, because Deity was to him in place of a stud, and that body was co-essential with Deity, and was not formed from the substance of Mary.” — See Mastrieht’s Theology, (1698,) volume ii. page 975. “Apollinaris, or Apollinarius, taught that the Son of God assumed manhood without a soul, (ψυχης ανευ,) as Socrates relates; but afterwards, changing his mind, he said that he assumed a soul, but that it did not possess the intelligent or rational principle, (νουν δε ουκ εξεις αυτην) and that the λογος (word) was instead of that principle, (αντιςου)” — Dick’s Lectures on Theology volume iii. page 22. — Ed. did of old,) that the Spirit was in Christ in place of a soul. And independently of this, the interpretation of this passage may be taken from the eighth chapter of the Romans, where the Apostle declares, that the body, indeed, is dead, on account of sin, and we carry in us the elements of death; but that the Spirit of Christ, who raised him up from the dead, dwelleth also in us, and that he is life, to raise up us also one day from the dead. (Romans 8:10, 11.) From this you see, that we have living souls, inasmuch as we are men, but that we have the life-giving Spirit of Christ poured out upon us by the grace of regeneration. In short, Paul’s meaning is, that the condition that we obtain through Christ is greatly superior to the lot of the first man, because a living soul was conferred upon Adam in his own name, and in that of his posterity, but Christ has procured for us the Spirit, who is life.

Now as to his calling Christ the last Adam, the reason is this, that as the human race was created in the first man, so it is renewed in Christ. I shall express it again, and more distinctly: All men were created in the first man, because, whatever God designed to give to all, he conferred upon that one man, so that the condition of mankind was settled in his person. He by his fall ¹¹⁷¹¹⁷     “Le poure mal-heureux par sa transgression;” — “The poor miserable creature by his transgression.” ruined himself and those that were his, because he drew them all, along with himself, into the same ruin: Christ came to restore our nature from ruin, and raise it up to a better condition than ever. They ¹¹⁸¹¹⁸     “Adam done et Christ;” — “Adam and Christ, therefore.” are then, as it were, two sources, or two roots of the human race. Hence it is not without good reason, that the one is called the first man, and the other the last. This, however, gives no support to those madmen, who make Christ to be one of ourselves, as though there were and always had been only two men, and that this multitude which we behold, were a mere phantom! A similar comparison occurs in Romans 5:12