The resurrection of Lazarus was like the healing of the sick, giving
sight to the blind, and other miraculous benefits, only _temporary_.
They were only restored to health in their mortal state, and liable to
be afflicted again. The resurrection of Lazarus was only his recovery
from death for the time being, and he was liable to die again. No doubt
he did die again. But Jesus rose to die no more. Death has no more
dominion over him. Those thus raised up _temporarily_, or simply raised
up to what they were before they died, were not counted where Christ
is spoken of as “the first-fruits of them that slept,” “the first-born
from the dead,” etc. They were raised to immortality and died no more.
The body was sown a mortal body, but raised immortal, or raised to die
no more.
This, we presume, is the solution of the matter, though but little
can be said, with any point, for or against it. It is, however, the
ground on which we satisfy our own mind. It is one of the matters left
a little obscure, and but one on which nothing of importance depends.
The view we take of it obviates any apparent discrepancy between the
passages above referred to. The word “begotten,” in “the first-begotten
from the dead,” should have been _born_, as the same original word is
elsewhere. A bare resurrection only raised a man to what he was before
he died, and left him as liable to death as he was before he died; but
the resurrection of Christ and those who rose after he rose was more
than this. The body was sown a mortal body, but raised immortal, or to
die no more. It was a complete and final deliverance from the grave and
from death—the final triumph over death and him who has the power of
death.