The Pulpit Commentary — 1 Corinthians — Section 506

probation and future re~ard. What had G_recian philosophy taught them? That the body was the seat of evil. What had Grecian art. taught them? 'l'o admire the body for sensuous purposes as a grat1ficat10n to resthetic tastes. And what had idolatrous worships shown them? 'l'he body degraded to the lowest vileness. Yet, indeed, Christianity had assured them that the body was "the temple or the Holy Ghost," and no doubt, St. Paul in his former preaching had instructed them in the sanctity of th~ body, "~ccording to the Scriptures." But her~ they were explaining away the doctrine, and entirely unaware of what they were domg. "It was not materialism, but an ultra-spiritualism, ~hich le~ the Corinthians into error" (F. \V. Robertson). "Fasci- nated, perhaps, by its plausible appearance of spirituality, o-Jad too-et rid of the offence of a carnal and material immortality, and fain to take refuo-e in the more refined idea. or the soul's recovered indeprndence of the body here, and it~ entire emancipation from th_e body hereafter" (Dr. <;andlish). Whatever the influences at work upon their mmds, the results were obv10ns to St. Paul. And to convince them of what a fatal error they had fallen into ir their disbelief were Joo-ically carried out into its con- sequences, he proceed~ to inquire of the~ how it wa; that Christ could be preached among them as One nsen from the dead, if there were no general resurrection. What consistency was there in believing that the Lord of humanity had risen, Lord of its body no less than of its soul, and yet this humanity in the race must be dislocated, body and soul sundered for ever, and soul alone be the SUl'Vivor of death? This is the starting-point, Christ the Representative, the federal Head, the Image of humanity as well as the Image of God. If there be no general resurrection, "then is Christ not risen." 'l'he argument is from a broad, uni versa! principle to a particular case under that principle, the former being the resurrection of man, and the latter that of the Son of man. By legitimate inference, therefore, supposing there were no resurrection for man, Christ was still in his grave. " Christ not risen!" What follows? A po- stolic "preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain." This is pressing the matter home with startling energy. But how could the logical consequence be otherwise? ChrisL Jesus, Son of God, had assumed man's physical nature, had been born of a woman, had eaten and drunk and grown like other men, had conformed to the laws of human corporeity, had been "made under the law" of providence, and taken all its requirements upon himself; and hence, if "made like unto his brethren," he rose from the dead just as he bad been incarnated, under the general law of humanity. From the beginning to the end, no break occurred in his career; it was human tl,roughout, and just as human when he rose from the grave as when born of the Virgin Mary. To be sure, a glory beyond the human was in him and around him-the glory of the eternal Sonship--but the human was never lost or swallowed up, never even obscured, by tbe mysterious awe of the Divine investing him. In this view of the matter, Ch1ist rose because he was a. man among men, and by virtue of a law which fouud in him its highest manifestation, just as all other laws of humanity had realized in him their sublimest expression. But what of our preaching as apostles? If he has not risen (risen he cannot be unle.~s there is a general resurrection), then "we are found false witnesses of God." Nothing else but false witnesses, "because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." Deluded men we cannot be; victims of excited and over- wrought senses; innocent enthusiasts ;-all this is impossible; and we are downright <lecei vers. Is this credible? Go back and read the roll of testifiers: St. Peter and the twelve, the outstanding fact of their testimony being Jesus and the resurrection; then the five hundred brethren, next St. James, and I myself. Can you Corinthians beli~ve a thing as absurd as this, that we are all false witnesses? So much for apostolical preaching. He had put their preaching as apostles and the faith of these Corinthians in the same category; they were each "vain,'' that is, "empty, groundless, unreal" (Kling). Now, then, he urges that if there be no resurrection, "Christ is not raised." If Christ be not risen, what object has your faith? 'I'o believe in his atoning death, you must believe in the necessary sequel and counterpart of that death, his resurrection, since the two facts are inseparably uniled. Admit his death, deny his resurrection, and "ye are yet in your sins." Is this credible? On the hypothesis of no literal rtsurreclion, three thinµ;s up to this point of the argument have been made clear, viz. Christ's death was in vain, apostolic preaching of Christ crucified was in •<JH, xv. 1-58.J THE FIRST EPISTLE TO Tm; CORINTHIANS. 515