1Cor 15:46-49 | Clarke | STEP | Verse 46 That was not first which is spiritual - The natural or animal body, described , was the first; it was the body with which Adam was created. The spiritual body is the last, and is that with which the soul is to be clothed in the resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:46-49

Verse 46

That was not first which is spiritual - The natural or animal body, described 1Cor 15:44, was the first; it was the body with which Adam was created. The spiritual body is the last, and is that with which the soul is to be clothed in the resurrection. Verse 47

The first man is of the earth - That is: Adam's body was made out of the dust of the earth; and hence the apostle says he was χοΐκος, of the dust; for the body was made עפר מן האדמה aphar min haadamah, dust from the ground; Gen 2:7.

The second man is - from heaven - Heavenly, ουρανιος, as several good MSS. and versions read. The resurrection body shall be of a heavenly nature, and not subject to decay or death. What is formed of earth must live after an earthly manner; must be nourished and supported by the earth: what is from heaven is of a spiritual nature; and shall have no farther connection with, nor dependence upon, earth. I conceive both these clauses to relate to man; and to point out the difference between the animal body and the spiritual body, or between the bodies which we now have and the bodies which we shall have in the resurrection. But can this be the meaning of the clause, the second man is the Lord from heaven? In the quotation I have omitted ὁ Κυριος, the Lord, on the following authorities: Manuscripts - BCD*EFG, and two others. Versions - Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian in the margin, Vulgate, and Itala. Fathers-Origen, who quotes it once and omits it once; Athanasius, Basil, the two Gregories, Nyssen and Nazianzen; Isidore, Cyril, Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, Zeno, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Ambrosiaster, Philaster, Leo, Pacianus, Primasius, Sedulius, Bede, and others. See these authorities more at large in Wetstein. Some of the most eminent of modern critics leave out the word, and Tertullian says that it was put in by the heretic Marcion. I do think that the word is not legitimate in this place. The verse is read by the MSS., versions, and fathers referred to, thus: The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is of heaven, heavenly; Κυριος being omitted and ουρανιος added. The first man and the second man of this verse are the same as the first Adam and the second Adam of 1Cor 15:45, and it is not clear that Christ is meant in either place. Some suppose that there is a reference here to what Eve said when she brought forth Cain: I have gotten a man from the Lord, קניתי איש את יהוה kanithi ish eth Yehovah, I have possessed or obtained a man, the Lord; that is, as Dr. Lightfoot explains it, that the Lord himself should become man: and he thinks that Eve had respect to the promise of Christ when she named her son; as Adam had when he named his wife. If Eve had this in view, we can only say she was sadly mistaken: indeed the conjecture is too refined.

The terms first man of the earth, and second man from heaven, are frequent among the Jews: אדם לעילא the superior Adam; and אדם תתאה Adam the inferior; that is, the earthly and the heavenly Adam: Adam before the resurrection, and Adam after it. Verse 48

As is the earthy, etc. - As Adam was, who was formed from the earth, so are all his descendants; frail, decaying, and subject to death.

As is the heavenly - As is the heavenly state of Adam and all glorified beings, so shall be the state of all those who, at the resurrection, are found fit for glory. Verse 49

And as we have borne the image of the earthy - As being descendants from Adam we have all been born in his likeness, and subject to the same kind of corruption, disgrace, and death; we shall also be raised to a life immortal, such as he now enjoys in the kingdom of God. This interpretation proceeds on the ground that what is here spoken belongs to Adam in his twofold state: viz. of mortality and immortality; of disgrace and honor; of earth and heaven.

But by many commentators the words are understood to refer to Adam and Christ, in 1Cor 15:46-49. By these, Christ is called the second Adam, the quickening Spirit, the second man, and the heavenly; whose image of righteousness and true holiness we are to bear.

But when I consider, 1st. How all these terms are used and applied in the Jewish writings, it appears to me that as this was not their import among them, so it was not the design of Paul; and it would be very difficult to find any place where Jesus Christ is called the second Adam in either Old or New Testament. The discourse of the apostle, Rom 5:14-19, will not prove it, though in those verses there is a comparison drawn between Adam and Christ; but that comparison refers to the extent of the sin and condemnation brought upon all men by the transgression of the first; and the redemption purchased for all men by the sacrifice of the last; and the superabundant grace procured by that sacrifice. But here, the comparison most evidently is between the state of man in this mortal life, and his state after the resurrection. Here, all men are corrupt and mortal, and here, all men die. There, all men shall be incorrupt and immortal, and, whether holy or unholy, shall be eternally immortal.

Of the image of Adam, in his heavenly or paradisaical state, the rabbins talk largely: they say that "God created Adam with a double image, earthly and heavenly; that he was the most perfect of all beings; that his splendor shone from one extremity of the earth to the other; that all feared before him; that he knew all wisdom, both earthly and heavenly; but when he sinned, his glory was diminished, and his wisdom departed from him." Yalcut Rubeni, fol. 10.

They add farther, that "in the time in which Adam received בדיוקנה עילאה the heavenly image, all creatures came to him, and acknowledged him king of the earth." Ibid., fol. 21.

From all this, and much more might be produced on the subject, (see Schoettgen), it appears that the apostle follows, as far as it could comport with his design, the sentiments of his countrymen, and that he adopts their very phraseology; and that it is through the medium of these sentiments and this phraseology that he is to be understood and interpreted. Others may understand all these passages differently; and still consider them as a parallel between Adam and Christ, which is the general view of interpreters. The view which I have taken of them appears to me to be much more consistent with the nature of the discourse, and the scope and design of the apostle. The common opinion is orthodox: what I here propose is no heresy. There are many difficulties in the chapter, and not a few in the verses immediately under consideration.