Part 9 (2/2)

1st. as being in this earthly house or body where they were absent from the Lord--

2nd. as being unclothed and found naked at his coming for which they had no desire--

3rd. As being absent from the body and present with the Lord where they should be clothed upon with their house from heaven that mortality might be swallowed up of life, for which they had a desire.

Verse 9. ”_Wherefore we labor that whether present or absent we may be accepted of him_.” Here we perceive that they did not labor to obtain entrance into his presence, because the immortal resurrection is the gift of G.o.d. But they labored, whether _alive_ on earth or _immortal_ in heaven, that they might be accepted among those, who were worthy to obtain a crown of righteousness in the first resurrection for having continued faithful unto the end--that they might be worthy to form a part of that glorious body of witnesses in heaven who were slain for the testimony of Jesus. And the body of christians on earth, who continued faithful to the coming of Christ, were to be fas.h.i.+oned like those above, and receive the same exalted honor in his gospel kingdom, and the whole compose one bright body of infallible witnesses, whose testimony can never be shaken by all the powers infidelity. ”To depart and be with Christ which is far better” must mean in an immortal existence.

We cannot, for want of room, argue this part of our subject at large; --but the above is in perfect agreement with the philosophy of St.

Paul, (1 Cor. 15,) where he compares the raising of the spiritual body to a grain of wheat sown in the earth. I would not be understood to say that this natural body of flesh and blood is ever to rise. No one, I presume, will contend that infants, youth and decrepid age, and those who are born deformed will be raised in that condition and all retain their various complexions. I believe, however, that there are those subtle materials in the natural body which, when extricated from the earthly tenement, and completely developed, shall produce the immortal being; and that these are as perfect in the infant as in the man.

We will now conclude by antic.i.p.ating and answering one or two princ.i.p.al objections. It may be objected that, if any one arose immortal before Christ, he could not have been ”the first-born from the dead” as stated in Col. i. 18. This does not mean _first_ in the order of time, but in _rank_. It means _princ.i.p.al_, and is explained by the connecting phrase--”that in all things he might have the _pre-eminence_.” It is more particularly explained in Rev. i. 5. ”Jesus Christ the faithful witness and the first-begotten of the dead and the Prince of the kings of the earth.” In connexion with this, we will introduce 1 Cor. xv. 20. ”But now is Christ risen from the dead and become _first-fruits_ of them that slept.” This also has reference to _rank_ and not to _first_ in the order of time. In evidence of this, we will quote Cruden,--”The day after the feast of the Pa.s.sover, they brought a sheaf into the temple the _first-fruits_ of the barley-harvest.

The sheaf was threshed in the court, and of the grain that came out they took a full homer; i.e. About three pints. After it had been well winnowed, parched and bruised, they sprinkled over it a log of oil; i.e. Near a pint. They added to it a handful of incense; and the priest that received this offering shook it before the Lord towards the four quarters of the world; he cast part of it upon the altar and the rest was his own. After this every one might begin their harvest. This was offered in the name of the whole nation, and by _this_ the harvest was sanctified unto them.”

Here let the question be asked--Was this sheaf called the _first-fruits_ because it was ripe before the whole harvest? No; it was not cut till the harvest was ripe. Was it called _first_ because the harvest would be _second_ in following it to the temple to be presented to G.o.d, by the priest, in the presence of the people? No; it was not to be carried to the temple, nor would the priest or the people ever see the whole harvest thus dedicated to G.o.d. But it was called ”the _first_ of the ripe fruits,” because it was offered to G.o.d in the presence of the people as an evidence of the consecration of the whole harvest throughout the nation. It was _first_ in distinction, or _importance_ without any allusion whatever to _first_ in the order of time.

So ”Christ was the _chosen_ of G.o.d, the _elect precious_, and the _Son_ consecrated forevermore.” He was ”the chief among ten thousand”

and proved to be the Son of G.o.d with power by a resurrection from the dead without seeing corruption. In this condition he was presented to the people as an evidence of the resurrection and consecration of all mankind. In this he was _first and last_--that is, the _princ.i.p.al_, the _chief, the head_, and in _this_ he never _has had_, and never _will have a second_ in the order of time. This is no evidence therefore that he was the first one who ever rose to an immortal existence. We have positive proof that Moses and Elias were raised from the dead, an in a state of conscious existence for they conversed with our Lord in the presence of three of his disciples. They appeared in glory, and were two as real personages on the one part, as was our Saviour on the other.

Acts xxvi. 23. _”That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light to the people and to the Gentiles.”_ This pa.s.sage contains, perhaps, as plausible an objection against my views as any that can be produced.

But this pa.s.sage means, that Christ should be the _first_ who should show light to the Jews and Gentiles through a resurrection from the dead. The Greek word, here rendered ”_should rise_,” is _anastaseos_ from _anastasis_. It is a _substantive_, not a _verb_. Professor Leusden, in his Latin Testament, renders it ”_ex resurrectione mortuorum”--by a resurrection from the dead_. The verb, _to raise, is egeiro_, and is six times applied to the raising of Christ from the dead in 1 Cor xv. _Anistemi_ also means _to rise_ and is applied to raising the dead to life. But neither--anistemi nor egeiro_ are used in the verse, but _anastaseos_--Consequently it cannot _literally_ be rendered ”_should rise_,” but _resurrection_. Wakefield translates it thus--”That Christ would suffer death and would be the _first_ to proclaim salvation to this people and the Gentiles _by a resurrection from the dead_.” This is evidently the real sense of the pa.s.sage, and I shall offer upon it no further comment.

<script>