the natural precedes the spiritual, is here illustrated by the fact that Adam came before Christ. The first man was of the earth, i. e. formed out of the earth, and therefore earthy. The second man is the Lord from heaven. Here the text is doubt- ful. The authorities are about equally divided for and against the reading 6 Kvptog, the Lord. The sentence is more simple if that word be omitted. ' The first man was from the earth ; the second man was from heaven.' If the common text be retained, the word Lord is in apposition 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 doctrine that our Lord was not really born of the Virgin Mary, but was clothed in a body derived from heaven, in opposition to whom the early creeds declare that he was as to his human nature consubstantial with man, and as to his divine nature consubstantial with God. The text, however, simply asserts the heavenly origin of Christ. Adam was of the earth ; Christ was from heaven ; comp. John 3, 13. Adam, therefore, had a body suited to the earth; Christ has a body suited to heaven.
48. As (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 ; they that are earthy are his descendants. The heavenly is Christ ; they that are heav- enly 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 Hke unto his srlorious body, Phil. 3, 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 <^op6o-o/i,ev, we shall hear, the great majority of the oldest MSS. read the conjunc- tive (f>op€(ro)ix€v, let us bear. 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 discus- sion. He is obviating the objection to the doctrine of the resurrection founded on the assumption that our bodies here-