But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
Read Chapter 15
Cornelius a Lapide
AD 1637
But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen. Not only because Christ was one of the dead, but also because the primary cause of Christ"s death and resurrection was the complete destruction of death, and the restoration of life. Moreover, the resurrection of Christ was a pattern of ours, i.e, of our resurrection to righteousness in this life, and to glory in the next. See S. Thomas (p3 , qu53 , art1) for five other reasons why it was necessary for Christ to rise again.
He brings many reasons to convince them of the resurrection. 1. If there be no resurrection for others, Christ is not risen again: but his resurrection (as he tells them ver. 4) was foretold in the Scriptures. 2. And if Christ be not risen again. Your faith is also in vain, this being one of the chief articles of your belief. 3. We shall be found guilty of lies and impostures; and yet we have confirmed this doctrine by many miracles. 4. It would follow that you are not freed from your sins; i.e. unless Christ, by his resurrection, has triumphed over sin and death. 5. Without a resurrection we Christians, who live under self-denials and persecutions, would be the most miserable of all men, neither happy in this world nor in the next, for the happiness of the soul requires also a happy resurrection of the body. 6. Christ is the first-fruits, and the first begotten of the dead, of those who have slept: and by his being the first-fruits, it must be supposed that others also will rise after...
Do you see Paul's energy, and his spirit for the combat, so invincible? How not only from what is evident he demonstrates what is doubted, but also from what is doubted, endeavors to demonstrate to gainsayers the former evident proposition? Not because what had already taken place required demonstration, but that he might signify this to be equally worthy of belief with that.
3. And what kind of consequence is this? says one. For if Christ be not raised, that then neither should others be raised, does follow: but that if others be not raised, neither should Christ be raised, what reason can there be in this? Since then this does not appear to be very reasonable, see how he works it out wisely, scattering his seeds beforehand from the beginning, even from the very groundwork of the Gospel: as, that having died for our sins, He was raised; and that He is the first-fruits of them that slept. For the first-fruits— of what can He be the first-fruits, except of them that are raised? And h...
Moreover, they even show themselves to be false witnesses of God, because they testified that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise. And we remain in our sins still.
