On the Resurrection (fragments)

The word of truth is free and has authority over itself, unwilling to fall under any test of refutation or to submit to examination by proof among its hearers. For its nobility and its confidence in him who sent it ask that it be believed. And the word of truth is sent from God; therefore the freedom claimed for it is not burdensome. For being borne along with authority, it rightly does not wish to be asked for proofs of what it says, since there are none besides the truth itself, which is God. For every proof is stronger and more trustworthy than what is proved, if indeed what was disbelieved before the proof came obtained belief when the proof was brought, and appeared to be such as it was said to be. But nothing is stronger or more trustworthy than the truth; so that he who asks for a proof of it is like one who wishes the things evident to the senses to be proved by arguments, because they appear. For of the things grasped by reason the criterion is sense; but of sense itself there is no criterion besides itself. As, then, we bring the things hunted out by reason to sense and by it judge of what sort they are, whether what is said is true or false, but no longer judge sense, believing it; so also we refer human and worldly arguments to the truth and by it judge whether they are worthless or not; but the words of the truth we judge by nothing else, believing them. And the truth is God, the Father of all, who is perfect Mind. His Son, the Word, came to us, bearing flesh, revealing himself and the Father, giving us in himself the resurrection from the dead and the eternal life that follows. And this is Jesus Christ, our Saviour and Master. He himself, then, is the faith and the proof of himself and of all things. Therefore those who follow him and know him, having their faith in him as their proof, will rest in him. But since the adversary does not cease to war against many, and uses many and various schemes of attack, against believers to lead them away from the faith, and against unbelievers that they may not believe, it seems to me necessary that we too, armed with the words of the faith, which cannot be wounded, should fight against him for the sake of the weak.

Those who speak worse things say that there is no resurrection of the flesh; for it is impossible, they say, that what is corrupted and dissolved should be brought together into the same. And besides its impossibility, they say that the salvation of the flesh is of no advantage; and they revile it, bringing forward its defects, and declare it alone the cause of sins, so that if, they say, the flesh is to rise, its defects also will rise with it. … either it will rise entire and having all its parts, or incomplete. But that it should rise defective shows weakness in God, if he was able to save some parts and not others; and if it will have all its parts and members, then to say that these exist after the resurrection from the dead, how is it not absurd, when the Saviour has said, “… in heaven”? And the angels, they say, have no flesh, and neither eat nor have intercourse; so there will be no resurrection of the flesh either. By saying these and similar things they try to turn people away from the faith. And there are some who say that Jesus himself appeared only as spiritual, no longer in the flesh, but presented an appearance of flesh; these too try to rob the flesh of the promise. First, then, … and next we will set forth the argument that proves concerning the flesh that it has salvation.

They say, then: “If the body rises entire and will have all its members, the functions of the members must also exist: the womb must conceive and the male member emit seed, and the rest likewise.” Let the argument be tested on this one point; for when this is shown to be false, their whole argument is overthrown. That the members, when active, do the things that are seen here is clear; but that they must of necessity do them from the beginning is not necessary. To make what is said clear, let us consider it thus. The function of the womb is to conceive … But just as, if they are to act, these are their functions, so it is not necessary for them to act from the beginning (we see, at least, many women not conceiving, such as the barren, even though they have wombs). So having a womb does not at once compel conceiving; but some are barren from the beginning, others after a time. And among men … we see some living as virgins from the beginning, others from a certain time; so that through them lawless marriage through desire is abolished. Moreover, we find some animals that bear no young, though they have wombs, like the mule; and the male mules do not beget. So both through humans and through irrational animals intercourse can be seen abolished even before the age to come. And our Lord Jesus Christ was born of a virgin for no other reason than to abolish the begetting that comes from lawless desire, and to show the ruler [of this world] that the forming of man was possible to God even without human intercourse. And having been born and lived the rest of the life of the flesh, I mean in food and drink and clothing, this alone, the life through intercourse, he did not practise; but of the desires of the flesh, those that are necessary he accepted, and those not necessary he did not admit. For flesh deprived of food and drink and clothing would perish; but deprived of lawless intercourse it suffers no harm. At the same time he foretold that the union through intercourse will be abolished in the age to come, as he says: “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage; but the sons of the age to come neither marry nor are given in marriage, but will be like angels in heaven.” Let those outside the faith not wonder, then, if the flesh, whose functions in these things are abolished even now, [is inactive] in the age to come also.

“Yes,” they say; “if, then, the flesh rises, it rises such as it fell asleep; so that if one-eyed, one-eyed; if lame, lame; if some other part of the body is lacking, the man will rise lacking that too.” How truly blinded are the eyes of their hearts! Have they not seen on earth the blind seeing and the lame walking at his word? All these things the Saviour did, first that what was spoken by the prophets about him might be fulfilled, that “the blind see and the deaf hear,” and the rest; and also to produce faith that in the resurrection the flesh will rise entire. For if on earth he healed the weaknesses of the flesh and made the body whole, much more will he do this in the resurrection, so that the flesh rises unimpaired and entire. In this way, then, the things they think insoluble will be healed.

Further, of those who say that the flesh does not rise, some say that it is impossible for it to rise, others … because of its baseness and contemptibility, and others that it has no promise at all. First, then, it seems to me right to show those who say that it is impossible for God to raise it that they are ignorant, professing in word to be believers and showing themselves by their deeds unbelievers, and more unbelieving than the unbelievers. For all the nations believed in idols and were persuaded that all things are possible to them (as Homer their poet says, “But the gods can do all things, and easily”; and he added “easily,” that is, without effort, to show the greatness of the gods' power); yet many [of us] appear more unbelieving than they. For if the nations have believed that their idols, their gods, “which have ears and do not hear, eyes and do not see,” can do all things, though they are demons, as the Scripture says that “the gods [of the nations are demons],” then we, who have the excellent and true faith, ought to believe in our God, having proofs: first, the creation of the first-formed man, that he came to be from the earth by God; for this is a sufficient proof of God's power; and then, for those who consider the subsequent generation of one from another, it is possible to see and wonder still more, that from a tiny drop of moisture so great a living being is formed. And indeed, if this too were only in promise and were not seen happening, it would be far more incredible than the rest; but its outcome makes it credible. Moreover, concerning the resurrection the Saviour has shown us outcomes, of which we shall speak shortly. But now we are showing that the resurrection of the flesh is possible, asking pardon of the children of the church if we touch also on arguments that seem to be from outside and worldly: first, because nothing is outside God, not even the world itself, for it is his work; second, because we are addressing these arguments to unbelievers. For if to believers, it would be enough to say, “We have believed”; but as it is we must proceed by proofs. The proofs already given are sufficient to show that the resurrection of the flesh is possible; but since they are very unbelieving, we shall bring forward a more compelling argument, not from faith, since they do not belong to it, but from unbelief, their mother: I mean, from worldly arguments. For if from these we show them that the resurrection of the flesh is possible, they surely deserve great shame if they listen neither to the words of faith nor to those of the world.

The so-called natural philosophers of the world say that the universe consists, according to some, of matter and God, as Plato; according to others, of atoms and void, as Epicurus; according to others, of the four elements, fire, water, air, earth, as the Stoics. For it is enough to mention the most prevalent opinions. Plato says that all things came to be from matter by God and according to his providence; Epicurus and his followers, from the atom and the void, by a spontaneous motion belonging to the natural movement of bodies; the Stoics, from the four elements, God pervading them. Though they disagree so much, there are certain doctrines agreed in common by all: first, that nothing comes to be from what is not, nor is dissolved and perishes into what is not; and that the elements from which each thing comes to be are indestructible. This being so, according to all of them the regeneration of the flesh will appear possible. For if, according to Plato, there are matter and God, both indestructible, God holds the place of a craftsman, that is, a modeller, and matter that of clay or wax or something of the kind. The model made from the matter, a statue or image, is destructible, but the matter itself is indestructible, such as clay or wax or some other kind of matter. So the modeller shapes from wax or clay the form of a living being; and again, if the model is dissolved, it is not impossible for him, kneading and renewing the same matter, to make the same model. So according to Plato it is not impossible for God, who is indestructible and has indestructible matter, when the model made from it has been dissolved, to renew it again and make the same model as it was before. Again, according to the Stoics, since the body comes to be from the blending of the four elements and is dissolved into the four, which remain indestructible, it is possible for the four elements, receiving the same mixture and blending again from God who pervades them, to make the body they had made before; just as if someone makes an alloy of gold and silver and bronze and tin, and then wishes to separate them again so that each is by itself, and again, if he wishes, mixing the same things, he will make the alloy he had formerly made from them. And according to Epicurus, since the atoms and the void are indestructible, and the other compounds and the body come to be from the atoms put together in a certain order and arrangement, and the body, dissolved in time, is dissolved again into the atoms from which it came to be, these remaining indestructible, nothing is impossible: … to make the body that was formerly made of them, and like it; just as if a mosaic-worker made the form of a living creature from stones, and then, when they had been scattered by time or by the maker himself, having the same stones, he collected them and arranged them in the same way, he would make the same form of the creature. And will God not be able to gather again the members of the flesh dissolved from one another and make the same body as the one he formerly made?

But the argument that the resurrection of the flesh is possible has been sufficiently proved by me according to the pagans. And if the resurrection of the flesh is not found impossible according to unbelievers, how much more according to believers! Next we must speak to those who dishonour the flesh and say that it is not worthy of the resurrection or of the heavenly commonwealth, first because its substance is earth, and then because it is full of every sin, so that it forces the soul to sin with it. These men seem to be ignorant of the whole work of God, and of the original creation and formation of man, and of the things in the world for whose sake it came to be. For does not the Word say, “Let us make man in our image and likeness”? What kind? Clearly he means fleshly man. For the Word says: “And God took dust from the earth and formed man.” It is clear, then, that man formed in the image of God was fleshly. How then is it not absurd to say that the flesh formed by God after his own image is without honour and worth nothing? That the flesh is a precious possession with God is clear, first from its having been formed by him, if indeed the image is precious to the modeller and painter; and it may be learned from the rest of the world's making too. For that for whose sake the rest came to be is the most precious of all to the maker. “Yes,” they say, “but the flesh is sinful, so that it compels the soul to sin with it”; they accuse it in vain, and lay on it alone the sins of both. For where does the flesh sin by itself, … and incites it? For just as with a yoke of oxen, if they are loosed from the yoke, neither can plough alone, so neither soul nor body, loosed from their union, can do anything by itself. And if the flesh is sinful, for its sake alone the Saviour came, as he says: “I came not to call the righteous but sinners.” Since, then, the flesh has been shown to be precious with God and glorious above all his works, it would rightly be saved by him.

We must speak, then, to those who say that, even if it is above all God's work and precious to him above all, it does not at once also have the promise of the resurrection. And yet how is it not absurd that what was made with such great care, and is precious above all the rest, should be overlooked by its maker so as to be no more? Then, if the modeller and the painter wish the images they make to last, … should we call God vain in his labour, if he overlooked his own possession and work [going] into non-being and not [bringing it] into being again? As if someone overlooked a house he was able to restore … shall we not blame God for making in vain? But the indestructible is not such, nor is the Mind of the universe foolish. Let the unbelievers be silent, even if they themselves do not believe. But in fact he has called it to the resurrection and promises it eternal life. For where he proclaims the good news of saving man, he proclaims it also to the flesh. For what is man but the rational living being composed of soul and body? Is the soul by itself man? No, but the soul of a man. Would the body be called man? No, but it is called the body of a man. If, then, neither of these by itself is man, but that which is made of the union of both is called man, and God has called man to life and resurrection, he has called not the part but the whole, that is, the soul and the body. For how is it not absurd, when both are alike and in the same being, that the one should be saved and the other not? And since it is not impossible, as has been shown, for the flesh to have regeneration, what is the distinction, that the soul should be saved and the flesh not? Do they make God envious? But he is good, and wishes all to be saved. And through him and his preaching not only did your soul hear, but with it the flesh, and believed in Christ Jesus; and both were washed, and both did the works of righteousness … God, if, when both believe in him, he wishes to save the one and not the other? “Yes,” they say, “but the soul is incorruptible, being a part of God and his breath, and therefore he wished to save what is his own and akin to him; but the flesh is corruptible and not from him, as the soul is.” Then what thanks are due to him, and what display of his power and goodness, if he was going to save what is saved by nature and is a part of himself? For it had its salvation from itself; so that in saving the soul he does nothing great. For being saved belongs to it, because it is a part of him, being his breath. But there is no thanks due to him for saving his own; for this is to save himself. For he who saves a part of himself saves himself through himself, lest that part become lacking; this is not the act of one who is good. For no one will call a man good who bestows something on his children and descendants; for even the wildest beasts do this, and if they must die for their offspring, they endure it willingly. But if someone did the same for his slaves, he would rightly be called good. For this reason the Saviour also taught us [to love] our enemies, “for what thanks is it to us?” he says; so he has shown us that it is a good work to love not only those born of us but also those outside. And what he commanded us, he himself does long before. And a little after:

If he had no need of the flesh, why did he also heal it? And, strongest of all, he raised the dead. For what reason? Was it not to show what the resurrection will be like? How, then, did he raise the dead? Their souls or their bodies? Clearly both. If the resurrection were only spiritual, he ought, when he had risen, to have shown the body lying by itself and the soul existing by itself. But as it is he did not do this, but raised the body, confirming in it the promise of life. Why, then, did he rise in the flesh in which he suffered, unless to show the resurrection of the flesh? And wishing to confirm this, since his disciples did not believe that he had truly risen in the body, as they looked on and doubted, he said to them: “Do you not yet have faith?” he says; “see that it is I”; and he showed them the prints of the nails in his hands. And having examined him on every side, that it was he and in the body, they asked him to eat with them, so that through this too they might learn surely that he had truly risen bodily; and he ate honeycomb and fish. And so, having shown them that there truly is a resurrection of the flesh, and wishing to show this also, as he had said that our dwelling is in heaven, that it is not impossible for flesh too to go up into heaven, he was taken up into heaven while they looked on, as he was, in the flesh. If, then, after all that has been said, anyone demands demonstrative arguments about the resurrection, he differs nothing from the Sadducees; since the resurrection of the flesh is the power of God, and above all reason, confirmed by faith, seen … And shortly after:

The resurrection is of the flesh that has fallen; for the spirit does not fall. The soul is in the body, and the body does not live without a soul; when the soul leaves it, the body is not. For the body is the house of the soul, and the soul the house of the spirit. These three will be saved in those who have sincere hope and undoubting faith in God. Considering, then, the worldly arguments as well, and finding that according to them too regeneration is not impossible for the flesh, and besides all these the Saviour showing throughout the Gospel the salvation of our flesh, why do we any longer put up with unbelieving and dangerous arguments, and fail to notice that we are turning back when we hear that the soul is immortal but the body corruptible and no longer able to live again? For these things we used to hear from Pythagoras and Plato even before we learned the truth. If, then, the Saviour said these things and proclaimed salvation for the soul alone, what new thing did he bring us beyond Pythagoras and Plato and their chorus? But as it is he came proclaiming to men a new and strange hope. And it was indeed strange and new that God should promise, not to keep incorruption incorruptible, but to make corruption incorruption. But the ruler of wickedness, unable to corrupt the word in any other way, sent forth his apostles, bringing in evil and pestilent teachings, choosing them from among those who crucified our Saviour; they bore the name of the Saviour but did the works of him who sent them, and because of them blasphemy has followed the Name. But if the flesh does not rise, why is it guarded at all, and why do we not rather allow it to indulge its desires? And why do we not imitate the physicians, they say, who, when they have given up hope that a man can be saved, allow him to serve his desires? For they know that he is perishing. This indeed is what those do who hate the flesh, casting it out of the inheritance as far as they can; for this reason too they dishonour it, as one that will be dead. But if our physician, Christ, God, drawing us away from our desires, regulates our flesh by his own temperate and self-controlled regimen, it is clear that he guards it as having hope of salvation from sins, just as physicians do not allow those who have hope of recovery to serve their pleasures.