But now Christ is risen from the dead, the firstfruits of them that sleep:

“Let us consider, beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future resurrection, of which He has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead. Let us contemplate, beloved, the resurrection which is at all times taking place. Day and night declare to us a resurrection. The night sinks to sleep, and the day arises; the day [again] departs, and the night comes on. Let us behold the fruits [of the earth], how the sowing of grain takes place. The sower [Luke 8:5] goes forth, and casts it into the ground, and the seed being thus scattered, though dry and naked when it fell upon the earth, is gradually dissolved. Then out of its dissolution the mighty power of the providence of the Lord raises it up again, and from one seed many arise and bring forth fruit.”

“For the Lord, having been born "the First-begotten of the dead," and receiving into His bosom the ancient fathers, has regenerated them into the life of God, He having been made Himself the beginning of those that live, as Adam became the beginning of those who die. Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.”

“He calls Him, then, "the first-fruits of them that sleep," as the "first-begotten of the dead." For He, having risen, and being desirous to show that that same (body) had been raised which had also died, when His disciples were in doubt, called Thomas to Him, and said, "Reach hither; handle me, and see: for a spirit hath not bone and flesh, as ye see me have." In calling Him the first-fruits, he testified to that which we have said, viz., that the Saviour, taking to Himself the flesh out of the same lump, raised this same flesh, and made it the first-fruits of the flesh of the righteous, in order that all we who have believed in the hope of the Risen One may have the resurrection in expectation.”

“"But now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the first-fruits of them that are asleep." Having signified how great mischiefs are bred from not believing the resurrection, he takes up the discourse again, and says, "But now hath Christ been raised from the dead;" continually adding, "from the dead," so as to stop the mouths of the heretics. "The first-fruits of them that slept." But if their first-fruits, then themselves also, must needs rise again. Whereas if he were speaking of the resurrection from sins, and none is without sin;-for even Paul saith, "I know nothing against myself, yet am I not hereby justified;"-how shall there be any who rise again, according to you? Seest thou that his discourse was of bodies? And that he might make it worthy of credit, he continually brings forward Christ who rose again in the flesh. Next he also assigns a reason. For, as I said, when one asserts but does not state the reason, his discourse is not easily received by the multitude.”

“Here he proves that the conditional posited above is true, namely, if Christ rose, the dead rise. And concerning this he does three things. First he shows how the resurrection of Christ is related to the resurrection of others; second he shows the order of the resurrection, at "but each in his own order," etc.; third he shows the end of the resurrection, at "then the end," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows the relation of Christ's resurrection to the resurrection of others, through the aforesaid conditional, proving this; second he proves the relation itself, at "for since," etc. He says therefore "now," that is, since the aforesaid absurdities follow if Christ did not rise, therefore to avoid them let us say that Christ has risen. But this is true, according to what is said in the last chapter of Matthew, and in other places of the Gospels. But the relation of Christ's resurrection to the resurrection of others is as the firstfruits of fruits to the fruits that follow, which exceed the other fruits in time and in excellence, or dignity; and therefore he says that he rose, not as the others, but as the firstfruits, that is, first in time and in dignity. Apoc. I, 5: the firstborn of the dead. "Firstfruits," I say, "of them that sleep," that is, of the dead who rest in the hope of the resurrection. From this the conditional posited can be inferred, because, as we say and it is true, if Christ, who is the firstfruits of them that sleep, rose, then also the others who sleep. But the contrary seems to be the case, namely that Christ did not rise as the firstfruits of them that sleep, because Lazarus was raised up by Christ before he had suffered, and certain prophets raised others from the dead, as is found in the Old Testament. To this it must be said that resurrection is twofold. One is to mortal life, and to this Lazarus and others, who were raised up, rose before Christ. The other is to immortal life, and of this the apostle speaks here. But against this, Matth. XXVII, 52 it is said, that many bodies of the saints rose. Since therefore this is read as before Christ's resurrection, and it is established that they did not rise to immortal life, it seems that the first question still remains. Response. It must be said that this which Matthew says about the resurrection of those, he says by anticipation, because although it is said in the account of the Passion, they did not rise then, but after Christ rose. "For since," etc. Here he proves the relation posited, namely that Christ is the firstfruits of them that sleep. And first he proves it in general, second in particular, at "and as in Adam," etc. He proves it in general by this argument: God willed to restore human nature, but human nature was corrupted through a man, because death entered through a man. It pertained therefore to the dignity of human nature that it be restored through a man, and this is that it be brought back to life. It was fitting therefore that, as death entered through a man, namely through Adam, so the resurrection of the dead should come about through a man, namely through Christ. Rom. c. V, 17: for if by the offense of one, etc. "And as in Adam." Here he proves the same thing in particular, saying that as in Adam we all die a bodily death, so also we are all made alive in Christ. Rom. V, 12: by one man, etc. And he does not say "through Eve," which seems to be against that saying of Eccli. XXV, 33: through her we all die. It must be said that this is through her, Eve, namely as suggesting, but through Adam as causing. For if only Eve had sinned, original sin would not have been passed on to posterity. "They shall be made alive," I say, "in Christ," namely both good and evil with the life of nature, but with the life of grace only the good; but nevertheless the apostle speaks here of the resurrection to the life of nature, to which all shall be made alive. Io. V, 26: as the father has life in himself, so also he has given the son to have life, that is, the power of giving life. Io. V, 28: all that are in the graves, etc. "But each in his own order," etc. Here he shows the order of the resurrection. And first he suggests the order itself; second he explains what he had said, at "Christ the firstfruits," etc. He says therefore that it is true that all shall be made alive in Christ, but nevertheless differently, because there will be a difference between the head and the members, and a difference as regards the good and the wicked. And therefore he says that each shall rise in his own order, namely of dignity. Rom. XIII, 1: but the things that are, are ordained of God. But he consequently explains this order, because "Christ the firstfruits," because he is prior in time and in dignity, because he has more of glory. Io. I, 14: we saw him as it were the only-begotten, etc. Then shall rise all who are Christ's, later in time and in dignity. These are they who have crucified their flesh with its vices, et cetera. Gal. IV, 4: but when the fullness came. I Tim. VI, v. 14: that thou keep the commandment without spot, blameless, unto the coming of our Lord. But who are Christ's he explains, saying those who have believed through faith, working through love. Hebr. XI, 6: he that cometh to God must believe, etc. "At his coming," the first and the second. But it must be known that among the other saints there will be no order of time, because all shall rise in the twinkling of an eye, but indeed according to dignities, because a martyr shall rise as a martyr, an apostle as an apostle, and so of the others. "Then the end." Here he shows the end of the resurrection, and this a twofold one. One as regards the attainment of good, the other as regards the removal of evil, at "for he must reign," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows that the attainment of the good itself consists in adherence to God; second he shows that it consists in immediate adherence, at "when he shall have brought to nought," etc. He says therefore, that "then," that is, after this, will be the end of the resurrection. And the end of this sort will not be that they live by the life of the body and by pleasures, as the Jews and Saracens imagine; but that they cling to God through immediate vision and blessed enjoyment: and this is "to deliver up the kingdom to God and the Father." And therefore he says "when he shall have delivered up," that is, shall have brought, "the kingdom," that is, his faithful ones whom he acquired by his own blood, Apoc. V, 9: thou hast redeemed us to God in thy blood, "to God and the Father," that is, before the sight of God, that is, of his creator, insofar as he is man, and of the Father, insofar as he is God. And this is what Philip was asking, Io. XIV, 8: lord, show us the father, etc. But he will hand it over in such a way that he does not take it away from himself, rather he himself, one God with the Father and the Holy Spirit, will reign. Or "when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father," that is, when he shall show God the Father to reign. For in Scripture things are said to come about then, when they first become known, and this kind of becoming known comes about through Christ. Matth. XI, 27: no one knows the father, but the son, and he to whom, etc. "When he shall have brought to nought." Here he shows the immediacy of the said adherence. For as it is said Gal. IV, 1 s., as long as the heir is a child, he is under tutors, etc. But when he is already grown and mature, then immediately, without a tutor and a guardian, he is under his father in the household. But the state of this present life is likened to childhood, and therefore in this life we are under angels, as under tutors, insofar as they are set over us and direct us; but when the kingdom shall be delivered to God and the Father, then we shall immediately be under God, and all other dominions will cease. And this is what he says, "and when he shall have brought to nought all principality and power and virtue," that is, when every dominion, both human and angelic, shall have ceased, then we shall be immediately under God. Is. II, 12: the lord alone shall be exalted in that day. Ier. c. XXXI, 34: a man shall no longer teach his neighbor, etc. But will not the orders of the angels remain distinct? It must be said that yes, as regards the eminence of glory, by which one is preeminent over another, but not as regards the efficacy of execution toward us. And therefore he says that those are brought to nought whose names pertain to execution, namely principalities, powers, and virtues. But those who are of the higher hierarchy he does not name, because they are not executors; nor angels, because it is a common name. But he did not say that dominations are brought to nought, because although they are among the executors, yet they themselves do not execute, but direct and command. For it belongs to lords to direct and command, not to execute; but archangels are understood together with principalities; for "archos" is the same as "prince." These three orders, according to Gregory, are read in descending order, because according to him principalities are above powers, and powers above virtues; but according to Dionysius, in ascending order, because he holds that virtues are above powers, and powers above principalities. Or otherwise, "when he shall have brought to nought," etc., that is, then it will be known that principalities, and powers, and dominations had no power of themselves, but from God, from whom are all things. Then when he says "for he must," etc., the apostle shows the end of the resurrection as regards the removal of evil. And this indeed he shows through the destruction of all the enemies with respect to Christ. And first he sets down their destruction; second the perfection of the subjection, at "but last," etc.; third the end of the subjection, at "but when all things shall be subdued." He says therefore first: I have said that the end will be, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father; but does Christ have a kingdom such that he must reign? For thus it is said in the last chapter of Matthew: it is given to me, etc. Lc. I, 32: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob. "He must," I say, "reign until he put his enemies under his feet." But are not his enemies now under his feet, that is, under the power of Christ? It must be said that now the enemies of Christ are under his power, but in two ways. Either insofar as through him they are converted, as Paul, whom he cast down, Act. IX, 3 s.; or insofar as Christ works his own will, even concerning those who here act against the will of Christ. Thus he puts his enemies under his feet, by punishing them; but in the future he will put them under his feet, that is, under the humanity of Christ. For as by "head" the deity of Christ is understood, because "the head of Christ is God," I Cor. XI, 3, so by "foot," the humanity. Ps. CXXXI, 7: we will adore in the place where his feet stood, etc. Thus therefore enemies will be not only under the deity, but also under the humanity of Christ. Phil. II, 10: in the name of Jesus every knee, etc. But what is it that he says "until he put"? etc. Will he not reign, before he has put his enemies under his feet? It must be said that this can be understood in two ways, for the word "until" sometimes determines time, and is put for the finite, as if I should say: I shall not see God until I die, because up to then I shall not see him, but afterward I shall see him. Sometimes it is put for the indefinite, as when it is said: he knew her not until she brought forth her son. Not that he means to say that he did not know her only up to the bringing forth of the son, but that he never knew her even afterward, as Jerome says. This manner is observed when some intend to exclude only those things about which there is doubt. Hence the Gospel excluded only that which seems to be doubtful, namely that Joseph had known the blessed virgin before the birth. But that after the birth he did not know her is doubtful to no one, since he had seen so many mysteries of the child and had been so often warned by angels, and Jesus had even been adored by the magi; hence he could already know her to be the mother of God, and therefore he did not trouble to exclude this: so also the apostle speaks here. For that someone should reign while his enemies are not yet subjugated, seems to be doubtful; but that he should reign after the enemies have been subjugated is doubtful to no one. And therefore he principally excludes that, saying "until he put," etc., as if he were to say: it is true that Christ has a kingdom, and although there are some enemies, while they do not do his will, nevertheless he reigns until he put, etc. It can also be understood in another way, "until he put," etc., so that the word "until" determines time, and is put for the future, so that it be said thus: he must reign, but when? "Until he put," etc. As if he were to say: he will reign until then, until he puts his enemies under his feet, but afterward he will not reign. But according to this exposition, "to reign" does not signify having a kingdom, but progressing in reigning and the kingdom being increased, and this as regards the perfect manifestation of the kingdom of Christ. As if he were to say: the kingdom of Christ progresses little by little, namely insofar as it is manifested and becomes known, until he puts his enemies under his feet, that is, until all enemies confess him to reign: the good indeed with the joy of beatitude, but the wicked with confusion; and afterward he does not reign, that is, his kingdom does not progress, and is no longer manifested, because it will already be fully manifest. Thus therefore the subjection of all who oppose is evident, and this subjection indeed will be most perfect, because even that which is most hostile will be subjected to him. But this is death, which is most contrary to life; and therefore he says "but last," etc.; where he does three things. First he sets down the subjection of death; second he proves this by an authority, at "for he has subjected all things," etc.; third from that same authority he argues, at "but when he says," etc. He says therefore: I have said that he has subjected all enemies under his feet. But how? Most perfectly, I say, because "last, the enemy death shall be destroyed," namely at the end, because it will not be able to be together with life, where all shall live through the resurrection. Os. XIII, 14: I will be thy death, o death. Is. XXV, 8: he shall cast down death forever. But it must be known that Origen took from this word an occasion for his error, which he sets down in the Periarchon. For he held that the punishments of the damned would be purgative and not eternal, and he held that all who are in hell would at some time be converted to Christ and be saved, and even the Devil. And this he confirms through those words, "until I put my enemies," etc. And he understands that this which is said, "enemies under his feet," is understood only of the subjection which comes about through the conversion of sinners to God, not of the subjection by which even those who never are converted to Christ are subjected to Christ, insofar as he punishes them in hell. And therefore he says "he must reign, until he put his enemies under his feet," because then all the damned and those who are in hell will be saved, namely insofar as they will be converted to him, and will serve him, and not only the damned men themselves; "autem" [used] in place of "sed," "last, death itself," that is the Devil, "shall be destroyed," not that it will not exist at all, but that it will not be death, because even the Devil himself will in the end be saved. But this is heretical and condemned in a Council. Again it must be known that the apostle pointedly set down this which is said, "but last," etc., to remove two questions, which can arise concerning the aforesaid things about the resurrection, namely whether Christ could make the dead alive. And this is resolved, because he has put all enemies under his feet, and even death itself. And why did he not immediately raise all up? To this it is answered, that it is necessary that first he subject his enemies under his feet, and last, when death itself shall be destroyed, then all shall rise to life. He does not therefore delay because he is unable, but in order to preserve order, because the things that are from God are ordained. But that death itself is subjected to Christ, he proves by the authority of Ps. VIII, 8: thou hast subjected all things under his feet, that is, under his humanity, namely Christ's. Phil. II, v. 11: every tongue, etc. Is. XLV, 24: to me every knee shall bow, etc. But from this authority he argues, saying "but when he says," etc. And his reasoning is this: the prophet says "thou hast subjected all things," etc., but by saying "all things," it is clear that he excluded nothing, except him who subjected; therefore all things are subjected to Christ, and death itself. He says therefore: "but when he says" — the Psalmist, namely — "all things are subjected to him," namely to Christ, insofar as he is man, "except him," namely the father, "who subjected all things to him." Hebr. II, v. 8: in that he subjected all things to him, etc. Matth. ult.: all power is given to me, etc. But against this. If the father subjected all things to the son, then the son is less than the father. Response. It must be said that the father subjected all things to the son insofar as he is man, as has been said, and thus the father is greater than the son. For he is less than the father according to his humanity, but equal according to his divinity. Or it must be said, that also the son himself, insofar as he is God, subjected all things to himself, because thus he can do all things that the father can, Phil. III, 20: we look for the savior, etc., according to the operation by which he is able to subject all things. Consequently, when he says "but when all things shall be subdued to him," etc., he shows that the end of this resurrection is not in the humanity of Christ, but the rational creature will be led further to the contemplation of the divinity, and in this is our beatitude, and our end is God himself. And therefore he says "but when all things shall be subdued," etc., as if he were to say: God has not yet subjected all things to Christ, but when all things shall have been subjected to him, namely to Christ, then the son himself according to his humanity will be subjected to him, namely to the father, Io. XIV, 28: the father is greater than I; and Christ is now also subjected, according as he is man, to the father, but this will then be more manifest. And the reason for this subjection is that God may be all in all, that is, that the soul of man may rest totally in God, and that God alone may be the beatitude. For now life is in one thing, and virtue in another, and glory in another, but then God will be life and salvation and virtue, and glory and all things. Or otherwise thus, "that God may be all in all," because then it will be manifested that whatever good we have is from God.”

“But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept (i.) Christ was and is the first of those that rise again, both in order of dignity and of merit (2.) He was first in the Divine will and intention. (3.) First causally, for by Him we shall all rise again. (4.) Temporally, for Christ was the first in time to rise to everlasting life; for though some before Him were raised to life by Elijah and Elisha, yet they rose to this mortal life only, and again died ; but Christ was the first to rise to the eternal life of bliss and glory. So Chrysostom, Anselm, Ambrose, Theophylact, Theodoret, and others. The word for firstfruits properly signifies this, and implies others to follow. So is Christ called the “ first-begotten of the dead,” i.e., rising before all others, and, as it were, being bom again from the dead. It seems from this to be a point de fide that no one rose before Christ to everlasting life. Those, therefore, who at the death of 374 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE Christ are said to have arisen (S. Matt xxvii. 52), rose after Him in the way of nature, if not of time, for their resurrection depended on Christ’s as its cause. Francis Suarez points out this (p. 3. qu. 53. art. 3). The earliest fruit of the earth, which under the Old Law was to be offered to God, was called the “firstfruits so Christ, after His resurrection, was offered to God as the firstfruits of the earth, into which He had been cast as a corn of wheat, and from which He sprang forth again in the new birth of the resurrection”

“In this passage the apostle establishes the truth of the resurrection of the dead, the holy dead, the dead in Christ, I. On the resurrection of Christ. 1. Because he is indeed the first-fruits of those that slept, Co1 15:20. He has truly risen himself, and he has risen in this very quality and character, as the first-fruits of those who sleep in him. As he has assuredly risen, so in his resurrection there is as much an earnest given that the dead in him shall rise as there was that the Jewish harvest in general should be accepted and blessed by the offering and acceptance of the first-fruits. The whole lump was made holy by the consecration of the first-fruits (Rom 11:16), and the whole body of Christ, all that are by faith united to him, are by his resurrection assured of their own. As he has risen, they shall rise; just as the lump is holy because the first fruits are so. He has not risen merely for himself, but as head of the body, the church; and those that sleep in him God will bring with him, Th1 4:14. Note, Christ's resurrection is a pledge and earnest of ours, if we are true believers in him; because he has risen, we shall rise. We are a part of the consecrated lump, and shall partake of the acceptance and favour vouchsafed the first-fruits. This is the first argument used by the apostle in confirmation of the truth; and it is, 2. Illustrated by a parallel between the first and second Adam. For, since by man came death, it was every way proper that by man should come deliverance from it, or, which is all one, a resurrection, Co1 15:21. And so, as in Adam all die, in Christ shall all be made alive; as through the sin of the first Adam all men became mortal, because all derived from him the same sinful nature, so through the merit and resurrection of Christ shall all who are made to partake of the Spirit, and the spiritual nature, revive, and become immortal. All who die die through the sin of Adam; all who are raised, in the sense of the apostle, rise through the merit and power of Christ. But the meaning is not that, as all men died in Adam, so all men, without exception, shall be made alive in Christ; for the scope of the apostle's argument restrains the general meaning. Christ rose as the first-fruits; therefore those that are Christ's (Co1 15:23) shall rise too. Hence it will not follow that all men without exception shall rise too; but it will fitly follow that all who thus rise, rise in virtue of Christ's resurrection, and so that their revival is owing to the man Christ Jesus, as the mortality of all mankind was owing to the first man; and so, as by man came death, by man came deliverance. Thus it seemed fit to the divine wisdom that, as the first Adam ruined his posterity by sin, the second Adam should raise his seed to a glorious immortality. 3. Before he leaves the argument he states that there will be an order observed in their resurrection. What that precisely will be we are nowhere told, but in the general only here that there will be order observed. Possibly those may rise first who have held the highest rank, and done the most eminent service, or suffered the most grievous evils, or cruel deaths, for Christ's sake. It is only here said that the first-fruits are supposed to rise first, and afterwards all who are Christ's, when he shall come again. Not that Christ's resurrection must in fact go before the resurrection of any of his, but it must be laid as the foundation: as it was not necessary that those who lived remote from Jerusalem must go thither and offer the first-fruits before they could account the lump holy, yet they must be set apart for this purpose, till they could be offered, which might be done at any time from pentecost till the feast of dedication. See Bishop Patrick on Num 24:2. The offering of the first-fruits was what made the lump holy; and the lump was made holy by this offering, though it was not made before the harvest was gathered in, so it were set apart for that end, and duly offered afterwards. So Christ's resurrection must, in order of nature, precede that of his saints, though some of these might rise in order of time before him. It is because he has risen that they rise. Note, Those that are Christ's must rise, because of their relation to him. II. He argues from the continuance of the mediatorial kingdom till all Christ's enemies are destroyed, the last of which is death, Co1 15:24-26. He has risen, and, upon his resurrection, was invested with sovereign empire, had all power in heaven and earth put into his hands (Mat 28:18), had a name given him above every name, that every knee might bow to him, and every tongue confess him Lord. Phi 2:9-11. And the administration of this kingdom must continue in his hands till all opposing power, and rule, and authority, be put down (Co1 15:24), till all enemies are put under his feet (Co1 15:25), and till the last enemy is destroyed, which is death, Co1 15:26. 1. This argument implies in it all these particulars: - (1.) That our Saviour rose from the dead to have all power put into his hands, and have and administer a kingdom, as Mediator: For this end he died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living, Rom 14:9. (2.) That this mediatorial kingdom is to have an end, at least as far as it is concerned in bringing his people safely to glory, and subduing all his and their enemies: Then cometh the end, Co1 15:24. (3.) That it is not to have an end till all opposing power be put down, and all enemies brought to his feet, Co1 15:24, Co1 15:25. (4.) That, among other enemies, death must be destroyed (Co1 15:26) or abolished; its powers over its members must be disannulled. Thus far the apostle is express; but he leaves us to make the inference that therefore the saints must rise, else death and the grave would have power over them, nor would our Saviour's kingly power prevail against the last enemy of his people and annul its power. When saints shall live again, and die no more, then, and not till then, will death be abolished, which must be brought about before our Saviour's mediatorial kingdom is delivered up, which yet must be in due time. The saints therefore shall live again and die no more. This is the scope of the argument; but, 2. The apostle drops several hints in the course of it which it will be proper to notice: as, (1.) That our Saviour, as man and mediator between God and man, has a delegated royalty, a kingdom given: All things are put under him, he excepted that did put all things under him, Co1 15:27. As man, all his authority must be delegated. And, though his mediation supposes his divine nature, yet as Mediator he does not so explicitly sustain the character of God, but a middle person between God and man, partaking of both natures, human and divine, as he was to reconcile both parties, God and man, and receiving commission and authority from God the Father to act in this office. The Father appears, in this whole dispensation, in the majesty and with the authority of God: the Son, made man, appears as the minister of the Father, though he is God as well as the Father. Nor is this passage to be understood of the eternal dominion over all his creatures which belongs to him as God, but of a kingdom committed to him as Mediator and God-man, and that chiefly after his resurrection, when, having overcome, he sat down with his Father on his throne, Rev 3:21. Then was the prediction verified, I have set my king upon my holy hill of Zion (Psa 2:6), placed him on his throne. This is meant by the phrase so frequent in the writings of the New Testament, of sitting at the right hand of God (Mar 16:19; Rom 8:34; Col 3:1 etc.), on the right hand of power (Mar 14:62; Luk 22:69), on the right hand of the throne of God (Heb 12:2), on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, Heb 8:1. Sitting down in this seat is taking upon him the exercise of his mediatorial power and royalty, which was done upon his ascension into heaven, Mar 16:19. And it is spoken of in scripture as a recompence made him for his deep humiliation and self-abasement, in becoming man, and dying for man the accursed death of the cross, Phi 2:6-12. Upon his ascension, he was made head over all things to the church, had power given him to govern and protect it against all its enemies, and in the end destroy them and complete the salvation of all that believe in him. This is not a power appertaining to Godhead as such; it is not original and unlimited power, but power given and limited to special purposes. And though he who has it is God, yet, inasmuch as he is somewhat else besides God, and in this whole dispensation acts not as God, but as Mediator, not as the offended Majesty, but as one interposing in favour of his offending creatures, and this by virtue of his consent and commission who acts and appears always in that character, he may properly be said to have this power given him; he may reign as God, with power unlimited, and yet may reign as Mediator, with a power delegated, and limited to these particular purposes. (2.) That this delegated royalty must at length be delivered up to the Father, from whom it was received (Co1 15:24); for it is a power received for particular ends and purposes, a power to govern and protect his church till all the members of it be gathered in, and the enemies of it for ever subdued and destroyed (Co1 15:25, Co1 15:26), and when these ends shall be obtained the power and authority will not need to be continued. The Redeemer must reign till his enemies be destroyed, and the salvation of his church and people accomplished; and, when this end is attained, then will he deliver up the power which he had only for this purpose, though he may continue to reign over his glorified church and body in heaven; and in this sense it may notwithstanding be said that he shall reign for ever and ever (Rev 11:15), that he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end (Luk 1:33), that his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, Dan 7:14. See also Mic 4:7. (3.) The Redeemer shall certainly reign till the last enemy of his people be destroyed, till death itself be abolished, till his saints revive and recover perfect life, never to be in fear and danger of dying any more. He shall have all power in heaven and earth till then - he who loved us, and gave himself for us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood - he who is so nearly related to us, and so much concerned for us. What support should this be to his saints in every hour of distress and temptation! He is alive who was dead, and liveth for ever, and doth reign, and will continue to reign, till the redemption of his people be completed, and the utter ruin of their enemies effected. (4.) When this is done, and all things are put under his feet, then shall the Son become subject to him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all, Co1 15:28. The meaning of this I take to be that then the man Christ Jesus, who hath appeared in so much majesty during the whole administration of his kingdom, shall appear upon giving it up to be a subject of the Father. Things are in scripture many times said to be when they are manifested and made to appear; and this delivering up of the kingdom will make it manifest that he who appeared in the majesty of the sovereign king was, during this administration, a subject of God. The glorified humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ, with all the dignity and power conferred on it, was no more than a glorious creature. This will appear when the kingdom shall be delivered up; and it will appear to the divine glory, that God may be all in all, that the accomplishment of our salvation may appear altogether divine, and God alone may have the honour of it. Note, Though the human nature must be employed in the work of our redemption, yet God was all in all in it. It was the Lord's doing and should be marvellous in our eyes. III. He argues for the resurrection, from the case of those who were baptized for the dead (Co1 15:29): What shall those do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they baptized for the dead? What shall they do if the dead rise not? What have they done? How vain a thing hath their baptism been! Must they stand by it, or renounce it? why are they baptized for huper the dead, if the dead rise not? tō nekrōn. But what is this baptism for the dead? It is necessary to be known, that the apostle's argument may be understood; whether it be only argumentum ad hominem, or ad rem; that is, whether it conclude for the thing in dispute universally, or only against the particular persons who were baptized for the dead. But who shall interpret this very obscure passage, which, though it consists of no more than three words, besides the articles, has had more than three times three senses put on it by interpreters? It is not agreed what is meant by baptism, whether it is to be taken in a proper or figurative sense, and, if in a proper sense, whether it is to be understood or Christian baptism properly so called, or some other ablution. And as little is it agreed who are the dead, or in what sense the preposition huper is to be taken. Some understand the dead of our Saviour himself; vide Whitby in loc. Why are persons baptized in the name of a dead Saviour, a Saviour who remains among the dead, if the dead rise not? But it is, I believe, and instance perfectly singular for hoi nekroi to mean no more than one dead person; it is a signification which the words have nowhere else. And the hoi baptizomenoi (the baptized) seem plainly to mean some particular persons, not Christians in general, which yet must be the signification if the hoi nekroi (the dead) be understood of our Saviour. Some understand the passage of the martyrs: Why do they suffer martyrdom for their religion? This is sometimes called the baptism of blood by ancients, and, by our Saviour himself, baptism indefinitely, Mat 20:22; Luk 12:50. But in what sense can those who die martyrs for their religion be said to be baptized (that is, die martyrs) for the dead? Some understand it of a custom that was observed, as some of the ancients tell us, among many who professed the Christian name in the first ages, of baptizing some in the name and stead of catechumens dying without baptism. But this savoured of such superstition that, if the custom had prevailed in the church so soon, the apostle would hardly have mentioned it without signifying a dislike of it. Some understand it of baptizing over the dead, which was a custom, they tell us, that early obtained; and this to testify their hope of the resurrection. This sense is pertinent to the apostle's argument, but it appears not that any such practice was in use in the apostle's time. Others understand it of those who have been baptized for the sake, or on occasion, of the martyrs, that is, the constancy with which they died for their religion. Some were doubtless converted to Christianity by observing this: and it would have been a vain thing for persons to have become Christians upon this motive, if the martyrs, by losing their lives for religion, became utterly extinct, and were to live no more. But the church at Corinth had not, in all probability, suffered much persecution at this time, or seem many instances of martyrdom among them, nor had many converts been made by the constancy and firmness which the martyrs discovered. Not to observe that hoi nekroi seems to be too general an expression to mean only the martyred dead. It is as easy an explication of the phrase as any I have met with, and as pertinent to the argument, to suppose the hoi nekroi to mean some among the Corinthians, who had been taken off by the hand of God. We read that many were sickly among them, and many slept (Co1 11:30), because of their disorderly behaviour at the Lord's table. These executions might terrify some into Christianity; as the miraculous earthquake did the jailer, Act 16:29, Act 16:30, etc. Persons baptized on such an occasion might be properly said to be baptized for the dead, that is, on their account. And the hoi baptizomenoi (the baptized) and the hoi nekroi (the dead) answer to one another; and upon this supposition the Corinthians could not mistake the apostle's meaning. "Now," says he, "what shall they do, and why were they baptized, if the dead rise not? You have a general persuasion that these men have done right, and acted wisely, and as they ought, on this occasion; but why, if the dead rise not, seeing they may perhaps hasten their death, by provoking a jealous God, and have no hopes beyond it?" But whether this be the meaning, or whatever else be, doubtless the apostle's argument was good and intelligible to the Corinthians. And his next is as plain to us. IV. He argues from the absurdity of his own conduct and that of other Christians upon this supposition, 1. It would be a foolish thing for them to run so many hazards (Co1 15:30): "Why stand we in jeopardy every hour? Why do we expose ourselves to continual peril - we Christians, especially we apostles?" Every one knows that it was dangerous being a Christian, and much more a preacher and an apostle, at that time. "Now," says the apostle, "what fools are we to run these hazards, if we have no better hopes beyond death, if when we die we die wholly, and revive no more!" Note, Christianity were a foolish profession if it proposed no hopes beyond this life, at least in such hazardous times as attended the first profession of it; it required men to risk all the blessings and comforts of this life, and to face and endure all the evils of it, without any future prospects. And is this a character of his religion fit for a Christian to endure? And must he not fix this character on it if he give up his future hopes, and deny the resurrection of the dead? This argument the apostle brings home to himself: "I protest," says he, "by your rejoicing in Jesus Christ, by all the comforts of Christianity, and all the peculiar succours and supports of our holy faith, that I die daily," Co1 15:31. He was in continual danger of death, and carried his life, as we say, in his hand. And why should he thus expose himself, if he had no hopes after life? To live in daily view and expectation of death, and yet have no prospect beyond it, must be very heartless and uncomfortable, and his case, upon this account, a very melancholy one. He had need be very well assured of the resurrection of the dead, or he was guilty of extreme weakness, in hazarding all that was dear to him in this world, and his life into the bargain. He had encountered very great difficulties and fierce enemies; he had fought with beasts at Ephesus (Co1 15:32), and was in danger of being pulled to pieces by an enraged multitude, stirred up by Demetrius and the other craftsmen (Act 19:24, etc.), though some understand this literally of Paul's being exposed to fight with wild beasts in the amphitheatre, at a Roman show in that city. And Nicephorus tells a formal story to this purport, and of the miraculous complaisance of the lions to him when they came near him. But so remarkable a trial and circumstance of his life, methinks, would not have been passed over by Luke, and much less by himself, when he gives us so large and particular a detail of his sufferings, Co2 11:24, ad fin. When he mentioned that he was five times scourged of the Jews, thrice beaten with rods, once stoned, thrice shipwrecked, it is strange that he should not have said that he was once exposed to fight with the beasts. I take it, therefore, that this fighting with beasts is a figurative expression, that the beasts intended were men of a fierce and ferine disposition, and that this refers to the passage above cited. "Now," says he, "what advantage have I from such contests, if the dead rise not? Why should I die daily, expose myself daily to the danger of dying by violent hands, if the dead rise not? And if post mortem nihil - if I am to perish by death, and expect nothing after it, could any thing be more weak?" Was Paul so senseless? Had he given the Corinthians any ground to entertain such a thought of him? If he had not been well assured that death would have been to his advantage, would he, in this stupid manner, have thrown away his life? Could any thing but the sure hopes of a better life after death have extinguished the love of life in him to this degree? "What advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? What can I propose to myself?" Note, It is very lawful and fit for a Christian to propose advantage to himself by his fidelity to God. Thus did Paul. Thus did our blessed Lord himself, Heb 12:2. And thus we are bidden to do after his example, and have our fruit to holiness, that our end may be everlasting life. This is the very end of our faith, even the salvation of our souls (Pe1 1:9), not only what it will issue in, but what we should aim at. 2. It would be a much wiser thing to take the comforts of this life: Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die (Co1 15:32); let us turn epicures. Thus this sentence means in the prophet, Isa 22:13. Let us even live like beasts, if we must die like them. This would be a wiser course, if there were no resurrection, no after-life or state, than to abandon all the pleasures of life, and offer and expose ourselves to all the miseries of life, and live in continual peril of perishing by savage rage and cruelty. This passage also plainly implies, as I have hinted above, that those who denied the resurrection among the Corinthians were perfect Sadducees, of whose principles we have this account in the holy writings, that they say, There is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit (Act 23:8), that is, "Man is all body, there is nothing in him to survive the body, nor will that, when once he is dead, ever revive again." Such Sadducees were the men against whom the apostle argued; otherwise his arguments had no force in them; for, though the body should never revive, yet, as long as the mind survived it, he might have much advantage from all the hazards he ran for Christ's sake. Nay, it is certain that the mind is to be the principal seat and subject of the heavenly glory and happiness. But, if there were no hopes after death, would not every wise man prefer an easy comfortable life before such a wretched one as the apostle led; nay, and endeavour to enjoy the comforts of life as fast as possible, because the continuance of it is short? Note, Nothing but the hopes of better things hereafter can enable a man to forego all the comforts and pleasures here, and embrace poverty, contempt, misery, and death. Thus did the apostles and primitive Christians; but how wretched was their case, and how foolish their conduct, if they deceived themselves, and abused the world with vain and false hopes! V. The apostle closes his argument with a caution, exhortation, and reproof. 1. A caution against the dangerous conversation of bad men, men of loose lives and principles: Be not deceived, says he; evil communications corrupt good manners, Co1 15:33. Possibly, some of those who said that there was no resurrection of the dead were men of loose lives, and endeavoured to countenance their vicious practices by so corrupt a principle; and had that speech often in their mouths Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. Now, the apostle grants that their talk was to the purpose if there was no future state. But, having confuted their principle, he now warns the Corinthians how dangerous such men's conversation must prove. He tells them that they would probably be corrupted by them, and fall in with their course of life, if they gave into their evil principles. Note, Bad company and conversation are likely to make bad men. Those who would keep their innocence must keep good company. Error and vice are infectious: and, if we would avoid the contagion, we must keep clear of those who have taken it. He that walketh with wise men shall be wise; but a companion of fools shall be destroyed, Pro 13:20. 2. Here is an exhortation to break off their sins, and rouse themselves, and lead a more holy and righteous life (Co1 15:34): Awake to righteousness, or awake righteously, eknēpsate dikaiōs, and sin not, or sin no more. "Rouse yourselves, break off your sins by repentance: renounce and forsake every evil way, correct whatever is amiss, and do not, by sloth and stupidity, be led away into such conversation and principles as will sap your Christian hopes, and corrupt your practice." The disbelief of a future state destroys all virtue and piety. But the best improvement to be made of the truth is to cease from sin, and set ourselves to the business of religion, and that in good earnest. If there will be a resurrection and a future life, we should live and act as those who believe it, and should not give into such senseless and sottish notions as will debauch our morals, and render us loose and sensual in our lives. 3. Here is a reproof, and a sharp one, to some at least among them: Some of you have not the knowledge of God; I speak this to your shame. Note, It is a shame in Christians not to have the knowledge of God. The Christian religion gives the best information that can be had about God, his nature, and grace, and government. Those who profess this religion reproach themselves, by remaining without the knowledge of God; for it must be owing to their own sloth, and slight of God, that they are ignorant of him. And is it not a horrid shame for a Christian to slight God, and be so wretchedly ignorant in matters that so nearly and highly concern him? Note, also, It must be ignorance of God that leads men into the disbelief of a resurrection and future life. Those who know God know that he will not abandon his faithful servants, nor leave them exposed to such hardships and sufferings without any recompence or reward. They know he is not unfaithful nor unkind, to forget their labour and patience, their faithful services and cheerful sufferings, or let their labour be in vain. But I am apt to think that the expression has a much stronger meaning; that there were atheistical people among them who hardly owned a God, or one who had any concern with or took cognizance of human affairs. These were indeed a scandal and shame to any Christian church. Note, Real atheism lies at the bottom of men's disbelief of a future state. Those who own a God and a providence, and observe how unequal the distributions of the present life are, and how frequently the best men fare worst, can hardly doubt an after state, where every thing will be set to rights.”

“For since by man came death,.... The first man, by sin, was the cause of death; of its coming into the world, and upon all men, by which corporeal death is here meant; though the first man also by sin brought a moral death, or a death in sin on all his posterity; and rendered them liable to an eternal death, which is the just wages of sin; but since the apostle is treating of the resurrection of the body, a bodily death seems only intended: by man came also the resurrection of the dead; so God, in his great goodness and infinite wisdom has thought fit, and he has so ordered it, that it should be, that as the first man was the cause of, and brought death into the world, the second man should be the cause of the resurrection of life. Christ is the meritorious and procuring cause of the resurrection of his people; he by dying has abolished death; and by rising from the dead has opened the graves of the saints, and procured their resurrection for them, obtained for them a right unto it, and made way for it: and he is the pattern and exemplar, according to which they will be raised; their vile bodies will be fashioned, and made like to his glorious body; and whereas both in life and in death they bear the image of the first and earthly man, in the resurrection they will bear the image of the second and heavenly one: he also will be the efficient cause of the resurrection; all the dead will be raised by his power, and at the hearing of his voice; though the saints only will be raised by him, in virtue of their union to him, and interest in him, being members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.”

“But now is Christ risen - On the contrary, Christ is raised from the dead, and is become the first fruits of them that slept. His resurrection has been demonstrated, and our resurrection necessarily follows; as sure as the first fruits are the proof that there is a harvest, so surely the resurrection of Christ is a proof of ours. The Judaizing teacher at Corinth would feel the force of this observation much sooner than we can, who are not much acquainted with Jewish customs. "Although," says Dr. Lightfoot, "the resurrection of Christ, compared with some first fruits, has very good harmony with them; yet especially it agrees with the offering of the sheaf, commonly called עומר omer, not only as the thing itself, but also as to the circumstances of the time. For first there was the passover, and the day following was a Sabbatic day, and on the day following that the first fruits were offered. So Christ, our passover, was crucified: the day following his crucifixion was the Sabbath, and the day following that, He, the first fruits of them that slept, rose again. All who died before Christ, and were raised again to life, died afterwards; but Christ is the first fruits of all who shall be raised from the dead to die no more."”

“now--as the case really is. and become--omitted in the oldest manuscripts. the first-fruits--the earnest or pledge, that the whole resurrection harvest will follow, so that our faith is not vain, nor our hope limited to this life. The time of writing this Epistle was probably about the Passover (Co1 5:7); the day after the Passover sabbath was that for offering the first-fruits (Lev 23:10-11), and the same was the day of Christ's resurrection: whence appears the appropriateness of the image.”