On the Resurrection, Fragments

THE WORD OF TRUTH IS FREE AND CARRIES ITS OWN AUTHORITY: refusing to fall under any skillful argument or endure the logical scrutiny of its listeners. It should be believed for its own nobility and the trust owed to Him who sends it. The word of truth is sent from God, so the freedom claimed by the truth is not arrogant. Since it is sent with authority, it is not appropriate to demand proof of what is said, as there is no proof beyond itself, which is God.

Every proof is stronger and more trustworthy than that which it proves; what is doubted until proven gains credibility when such proof is presented and is recognized as what it was claimed to be. Nothing is more powerful or trustworthy than truth, so requiring proof is like demanding an explanation of why things appear as they do to the senses. The test for things received through reason is sense, but sense itself has no test beyond itself. Just as we use sense to judge whether the things reason seeks are true or false and no longer question its judgment, accepting its decision entirely, so we refer what is said about people and the world to the truth and judge its worth by it.

However, we do not judge the utterances of truth by any separate test, accepting it completely on its own authority. God, the Father of the universe, who is perfect intelligence, is the truth. The Word, His Son, came to us in flesh, revealing both Himself and the Father, granting us resurrection from the dead and eternal life afterward. This is Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord. He is both the faith and the proof of Himself and all things.

Therefore, those who follow and know Him, having faith in Him as their proof, will find rest in Him.

But since the adversary continues to resist many and employs various strategies to trap them and lead the faithful away from their faith, and to prevent the faithless from believing, it seems necessary for us, armed with the invulnerable doctrines of faith, to battle against him on behalf of the weak.

THOSE WHO HOLD THE WRONG OPINION CLAIM THAT THERE IS NO RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH: arguing that it is impossible for what is corrupted and dissolved to be restored to its original state. Besides claiming impossibility, they assert that salvation of the flesh is undesirable; they criticize the flesh, citing its weaknesses, and claim that it is the sole cause of our sins, suggesting that if the flesh rises again, our weaknesses will rise with it. They develop arguments such as the following: If the flesh rises again, it must rise either whole with all its parts or imperfect.

An imperfect resurrection suggests a lack of power on God's part if some parts could be saved and others not; but if all parts are saved, then the body would clearly have all its members. Isn't it absurd to say these members will exist after resurrection, since the Savior said, "They neither marry nor are given in marriage, but shall be like the angels in heaven?" And, they say, the angels have neither flesh, nor do they eat, nor have sexual relations; therefore, they argue, there shall be no resurrection of the flesh.

By such arguments, they try to distract people from the faith.

Additionally, some claim that even Jesus Himself appeared only in spirit, not in flesh, merely presenting the appearance of flesh: these individuals aim to deprive the flesh of its promise. First, let's address those things which seem insoluble to them; then we will systematically provide evidence concerning the flesh, proving that it shares in salvation.

THEY ARGUE THAT IF THE BODY WILL RISE WHOLE AND WITH ALL ITS PARTS: it must follow that these parts will also function; that the womb shall become pregnant, the male will perform his reproductive role, and the other parts will function similarly. Let this argument stand or fall based on this claim alone. If this claim is proven false, their whole objection is invalid. It is clear that the parts that serve functions in our current life don't necessarily perform the same functions from the start.

To clarify, consider this: the womb's function is to become pregnant, and the male’s role is to cause pregnancy.

However, having these parts doesn't mean they must always perform these functions immediately (as many women remain childless, like those who are barren, yet have wombs), so pregnancy isn't a necessary consequence of having a womb. Both barren and fertile women can abstain from sexual relations, some from birth and others later in life. Men also remain virgins, some from birth and others later on, thus preventing marriage corrupted by lust.

Some animals with wombs don't bear offspring either, such as mules; male mules don’t father offspring. So, both in humans and animals, sexual relations can cease even before the afterlife. Our Lord Jesus Christ was born of a virgin to end procreation driven by wrongful desire and to show the ruler that forming man was possible for God without human intervention. After His birth, He conformed to other human conditions—like eating, drinking, and wearing clothes—but not to fulfilling sexual functions.

Regarding fleshly desires, He accepted some as necessary but did not indulge in those unnecessary. Without food, drink, or clothing, the flesh perishes, but it doesn't suffer from the absence of wrongful desire. He also foretold that, in the afterlife, sexual intercourse will cease; as He said, “The children of this world marry and are given in marriage; but the children of the next world neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven.” Unbelievers shouldn't be surprised if, in the afterlife, He ends the actions of our flesh that are already abolished in this life.

WELL: they say if the flesh rises, it must rise the same as it falls; so if it dies with one eye, it must rise one-eyed; if lame, lame; if missing any part of the body, that part will still be missing when the person rises. How truly blinded are they in the eyes of their hearts! For they have not seen blind people on earth seeing again, and the lame walking by His word. All the things the Saviour did, He did firstly to fulfill what was spoken about Him in the prophets, “that the blind should receive sight, and the deaf hear,” and so on; but also to encourage the belief that in the resurrection, the flesh will rise whole. For if on earth He healed the sicknesses of the flesh and made the body whole, He will certainly do this even more in the resurrection, so the flesh will rise perfect and whole. In this way, their dreaded difficulties will be resolved.

HOWEVER: some who claim there is no resurrection of the flesh argue that it is impossible; others believe that, given how vile and despicable the flesh is, it is not right for God to raise it; and still others contend that it did not initially receive the promise. First, regarding those who say it is impossible for God to raise it, I feel I should point out that they are ignorant, professing in words that they are believers, yet in their actions proving themselves more unbelieving than even the unbelievers. For all the heathen believe in their idols and are convinced that to them all things are possible (as even their poet Homer says, "The gods can do all things, and that easily;" and he added "easily" to highlight the greatness of the power of the gods), many seem more unbelieving than they. If the heathen believe in their gods, which are idols ("which have ears, and they hear not; they have eyes, and they see not"), that they can do all things, though they are merely devils, as says the Scripture, "The gods of the nations are devils," then much more should we, who hold the right, excellent, and true faith, believe in our God, especially since we have proofs of His power. First, in the creation of the first man, for he was made from the earth by God; this is sufficient evidence of God’s power; and then those who observe can see how men are generated from one another, and can marvel even more that from a tiny drop of moisture such an incredible living being is formed. Certainly, if this were only recorded as a promise and not seen accomplished, it would be much more incredible; but it is made more believable by its accomplishment.

Even concerning the resurrection, the Savior has shown us accomplishments, which we will discuss shortly. But for now, we are proving that the resurrection of the flesh is possible, asking forgiveness from the children of the Church if we present arguments that seem secular and physical: firstly, because to God nothing is secular, not even the world itself, for it is His creation; and secondly, because we are framing our argument to engage unbelievers. If we argued with believers, it would be enough to say we believe; but now we must use demonstrations. The previous proofs are sufficient to show the possibility of the resurrection of the flesh; but since these individuals are extremely unbelieving, we will provide an even more convincing argument—an argument not from faith, for they are beyond its reach, but from their own source of unbelief, namely, from physical reasons. If we, through these arguments, prove to them that the resurrection of the flesh is possible, they are truly deserving of great contempt if they can be convinced by neither the assertions of faith nor the arguments of the world.

THOSE: then, who are called natural philosophers, say, some of them, like Plato, that the universe consists of matter and God; others, like Epicurus, that it is made of atoms and the void; others, like the Stoics, that it is composed of four elements—fire, water, air, and earth. It is enough to mention the most prevalent opinions. Plato says that God makes all things from matter following His design; however, Epicurus and his followers claim all things come from atoms and the void through a kind of self-regulating natural movement of the bodies; and the Stoics argue that everything comes from the four elements with God pervading them.

Despite their differences, there are some doctrines all these philosophers commonly acknowledge, one of which is that nothing can be produced from what does not exist, nor can anything be destroyed into non-existence, and that the elements from which everything is generated are indestructible. Given this, the regeneration of the flesh would seem possible to all these philosophers. According to Plato, since both matter and God are indestructible, with God as the creator like a potter, and matter as the clay or wax, whatever is formed from matter, such as an image or a statue, is destructible; but the matter itself, like clay or wax, is indestructible.

The artist designs using clay or wax, making the form of a living creature; and if his work is destroyed, it is not impossible for him to recreate the same form using the same material.

Therefore, according to Plato, it would not be impossible for God, who is Himself indestructible and works with indestructible material, to reform what was created and destroyed, just as it was before. Even according to the Stoics, if a body is formed by the mixture of four elementary substances and then dissolved back into these elements, since they remain indestructible, it is possible for them to be combined again by God pervading them, re-forming the body they originally made.

Like a person who makes a composition of gold, silver, brass, and tin, dissolves it, and then mixes them again to recreate the same composition. Similarly, according to Epicurus, since atoms and the void are indestructible, a specific arrangement of atoms forms all things, including bodies; and when a body is dissolved, it returns to its original atoms. As these remain indestructible, they can come together again to form a body similar to what was initially created, like a jeweler making a mosaic of an animal, scattering the stones, and then recomposing them to recreate the same form.

Could God not also gather the scattered elements of the body and recreate it just as it was initially made by Him?

I HAVE ADEQUATELY SHOWN THE POSSIBILITY OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH IN RESPONSE TO WORLDLY PEOPLE: If the resurrection of the flesh is not deemed impossible even by the principles of unbelievers, how much more will it align with the beliefs of the faithful? Now, according to our plan, we should address those who underestimate the flesh, claiming it is unworthy of resurrection or the heavenly realm, because, firstly, it is made of earth; and also because it is filled with wickedness, compelling the soul to sin with it.

These individuals seem unaware of God's entire work, both in the creation and formation of man originally, and the purpose behind the creation of the world. Doesn't the word say, "Let Us make man in our image, after our likeness?" What kind of man? Clearly, it means a physical man, since the word says, "And God took dust of the earth and made man." Thus, it is evident that man, made in the image of God, was of flesh. Is it not, then, unreasonable to say that the flesh, made by God in His own image, is worthless and contemptible? Moreover, that the flesh is valued by God is clear, firstly, from it being formed by Him—assuming that the image is of value to its creator and artist—and also its value can be inferred from the creation of the rest of the world.

For that, for which the rest is made, is the most valuable of all to the maker.

INDEED: they say; yet the flesh is a sinner, to the extent that it compels the soul to sin along with it. In this way, they wrongly accuse it and blame it solely for the sins of both. But in what situation can the flesh sin on its own without the soul leading and provoking it? Just like a pair of oxen, where if one or the other is freed from the yoke, neither can plow by themselves; similarly, neither the soul nor the body can accomplish anything if they are separated from their union. And if it is the flesh that is the sinner, then for its sake alone did the Savior come, as He says, “I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Therefore, since the flesh has been shown to be valuable in the eyes of God and glorious above all His works, it would be rightfully saved by Him.

WE MUST ADDRESS THOSE WHO CLAIM THAT: even if it is the special handiwork of God and valued above all else by Him, this doesn't necessarily mean it has the promise of resurrection. Isn't it absurd to think that something created with such care and value could be so neglected by its Maker as to cease to exist? Sculptors and painters, wanting their creations to last for their own glory, restore them when they begin to decay. Yet, would God neglect His own creation so that it becomes annihilated and no longer exists? Wouldn't this be pointless effort? It would be as if a man built a house only to immediately destroy it or neglect it as it falls apart, despite being able to repair it. We would criticize him for working in vain, so why wouldn't we criticize God? However, God, who is Incorruptible, is not lacking in wisdom. Let those who do not believe remain silent, even if they choose not to believe.

IN TRUTH: He has called even the flesh to the resurrection and promises it everlasting life. For when He promises to save man, He gives the promise to the flesh as well. For what is man but a rational being made up of body and soul? Is the soul by itself man? No, it is the soul of a man. Would the body be called man? No, it is the body of a man. If neither on its own is man, but together they form man, and God has called man to life and resurrection, then He has called not just a part, but the whole, which includes both soul and body.

Wouldn't it be absurd if, while these two are part of the same being and follow the same law, one were saved and the other not? And if it is not impossible for the flesh to be regenerated, as has already been shown, what distinguishes the soul to be saved but not the body? Do they suggest God is grudging? But He is good and desires everyone to be saved. According to God's word, not only has your soul heard and believed in Jesus Christ, but so has your flesh, and both have been washed and acted righteously.

They make God seem ungrateful and unjust if, while both believe in Him, He wishes to save one and not the other. They argue that the soul is incorruptible, being a part of God and inspired by Him, and thus He wants to save what belongs to Him; but the flesh is corruptible and not from Him like the soul is. What gratitude would He deserve, and what demonstration of His power and goodness would it be, if He aimed to save what is already naturally saved and part of Himself? For the soul's salvation comes from itself; thus, in saving the soul, God does no significant thing.

To be saved is the soul's natural destiny because it is inspired by Him.

But no thanks are due to someone who saves what is already theirs; this is akin to saving oneself. For someone who saves a part of themselves saves themselves to avoid being incomplete in that part; this is not the action of a good person. For even when a person is good to their children and offspring, we don't call them a good person solely because of that; even the wildest of animals do so and will willingly die, if necessary, for their young.

But if someone were to perform such acts for their slaves, that person would rightly be called good.

Therefore, the Saviour has also taught us to love our enemies, as He says, "What thanks do you have?" showing us that doing good isn't only about loving those begotten by Him but also those outside. And what He commands us to do, He Himself does first.

IF HE HAD NO NEED FOR THE BODY: why did He heal it? Most importantly, He raised the dead. Why? Was it not to demonstrate what the resurrection would be like? How then did He raise the dead? Their souls or their bodies? Clearly, both. If the resurrection were only spiritual, it would have been necessary for Him, in raising the dead, to show the body lying apart by itself and the soul living separately.

But He did not do so; instead, He raised the body, confirming the promise of life within it.

Why did He rise in the flesh in which He suffered, if not to demonstrate the resurrection of the flesh? Wishing to confirm this, when His disciples were unsure whether to believe He had truly risen in the flesh, and were looking at Him in doubt, He said to them, “You still have no faith; see that it is I.” He allowed them to touch Him and showed them the marks of the nails in His hands. When they were persuaded by every kind of proof that it was indeed Himself and in the body, they asked Him to eat with them to further verify that He had genuinely risen bodily; and He ate honeycomb and fish.

By doing this, He showed them that there truly is a resurrection of the flesh, and wished to demonstrate that it is not impossible for flesh to ascend into heaven (as He had said that our dwelling place is in heaven), “He was taken up into heaven while they watched,” as He was in the flesh.

Therefore, if after all this, anyone still requires proof of the resurrection, they are no different from the Sadducees, since the resurrection of the flesh is the power of God, and, being beyond all reasoning, is established by faith and seen in action.

THE RESURRECTION IS A RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH THAT HAS DIED: For the spirit does not die; the soul is in the body, and without a soul the body cannot live. When the soul leaves it, the body ceases to be. The body is the house of the soul; and the soul is the house of the spirit. These three, in all those who hold a sincere hope and unquestioning faith in God, will be saved. Even when considering arguments suited to this world, we find it is not impossible for the flesh to be regenerated; and seeing that, in addition to all these proofs, the Saviour in the entire Gospel shows that there is salvation for the flesh, why do we endure those unbelieving and dangerous arguments, failing to realize that we are regressing when we listen to claims that the soul is immortal, but the body is mortal and incapable of being revived? For this is what we heard from Pythagoras and Plato, even before we learned the truth.

If then the Saviour said this and proclaimed salvation only to the soul, what new message, beyond what we heard from Pythagoras and Plato and all their followers, did He bring us? But now He has come proclaiming the good news of a new and strange hope to humanity. For indeed, it was a strange and new thing for God to promise that He would not keep incorruption in incorruption, but would transform corruption into incorruption. As the prince of wickedness could corrupt the truth in no other way, he sent out his apostles (evil men who introduced dangerous doctrines), choosing them from those who crucified our Saviour; and these men took the name of the Saviour, but did the works of the one who sent them, through whom the name itself has been spoken against.

But if the flesh does not rise, why is it also guarded, and why do we not let it indulge its desires? Why do we not imitate physicians, who, when they get a patient deemed hopeless and incurable, allow the patient to indulge their desires? For they know the patient is dying; and this indeed is what those who hate the flesh surely do, casting it out of its inheritance as much as they can; for this reason, they also despise it, because it will soon become a corpse.

But if our physician Christ, God, having rescued us from our desires, regulates our flesh with His wise and temperate rule, it is evident that He guards it from sins because it has a hope of salvation, much like physicians do not allow people they hope to save to indulge in whatever pleasures they wish.