Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| The Change of a Thing's Condition is Not the Destruction of Its Substance. The Application of This Principle to Our Subject.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter LV.—The Change
of a Thing’s Condition is Not the Destruction of Its Substance.
The Application of This Principle to Our Subject.
Now although, in proving that the flesh shall rise again
we ipso facto prove that no other flesh will
partake of that resurrection than that which is in question, yet
insulated questions and their occasions do require even discussions of
their own, even if they have been already sufficiently met. We will
therefore give a fuller explanation of the force and the reason of a
change which (is so great, that it) almost suggests the presumption
that it is a different flesh which is to rise again; as if, indeed, so
great a change amounted to utter cessation, and a complete destruction
of the former self. A distinction, however, must be made between a
change, however great, and everything which has the character of
destruction. For undergoing change is one thing, but being
destroyed is another thing. Now this distinction would no longer exist,
if the flesh were to suffer such a change as amounts to destruction.
Destroyed, however, it must be by the change, unless it shall itself
persistently remain throughout the altered condition which shall be
exhibited in the resurrection. For precisely as it perishes, if it does
not rise again, so also does it equally perish even if it does rise
again, on the supposition that it is lost7705
in
the change. It will as much fail of a future existence, as if it did
not rise again at all. And how absurd is it to rise again for the
purpose of not having a being, when it had it in its power not to rise
again, and so lose its being—because it had already begun its
non-existence! Now, things which are absolutely different, as mutation
and destruction are, will not admit of mixture and confusion; in their
operations, too, they differ. One destroys, the other changes.
Therefore, as that which is destroyed is not changed, so that which is
changed is not destroyed. To perish is altogether to cease to be what a
thing once was, whereas to be changed is to exist in another condition.
Now, if a thing exists in another condition, it can still be the same
thing itself; for since it does not perish, it has its existence still.
A change, indeed, it has experienced, but not a destruction. A thing
may undergo a complete change, and yet remain still the same thing. In
like manner, a man also may be quite himself in substance even in the
present life, and for all that undergo various changes—in habit,
in bodily bulk, in health, in condition, in dignity, and in
age—in taste, business, means, houses, laws and customs—and
still lose nothing of his human nature, nor so to be made another man
as to cease to be the same; indeed, I ought hardly to say another man,
but another thing. This form of change even the Holy Scriptures give us
instances of. The hand of Moses is changed, and it becomes like a dead
one, bloodless, colourless, and stiff with cold; but on the recovery of
heat, and on the restoration of its natural colour, it is again the
same flesh and blood.7706
Afterwards the face
of the same Moses is changed,7707
with a brightness
which eye could not bear. But he was Moses still, even when he
was not visible. So also Stephen had already put on the appearance of
an angel,7708
although they were
none other than his
human knees7709
which bent beneath
the stoning. The Lord, again, in the retirement of the mount, had
changed His raiment for a robe of light; but He still retained features
which Peter could recognise.7710
In that same scene
Moses also and Elias gave proof that the same condition of bodily
existence may continue even in glory—the one in the likeness of a
flesh which he had not yet recovered, the other in the reality of one
which he had not yet put off.7711
It was as full of
this splendid example that Paul said: “Who shall change our vile
body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious
body.”7712
But if you maintain
that a transfiguration and a conversion amounts to the annihilation of
any substance, then it follows that “Saul, when changed into
another man,”7713
passed away from
his own bodily substance; and that Satan himself, when
“transformed into an angel of light,”7714
loses his own proper character. Such is not
my opinion. So likewise changes, conversions and reformations will
necessarily take place to bring about the resurrection, but the
substance of the flesh will still be preserved
safe.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
