Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| A Synopsis of Some Apostolic Words from the Same Discourse.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
II. A Synopsis of
Some Apostolic Words from the Same Discourse.2902
| 2902 From
Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 234. |
I. Read a compendious interpretation of some
apostolic words from the same discourse. Let us see, then, what
it is that we have endeavoured to say respecting the apostle. For
this saying of his, “I was alive without the law
once,”2903
refers to the
life which was lived in paradise before the law, not without a body,
but with a body, by our first parents, as we have shown above; for we
lived without concupiscence, being altogether ignorant of its
assaults. For not to have a law according to which we ought to
live, nor a power of establishing what manner of life we ought
to adopt, so that we
might justly be approved or blamed, is considered to exempt a person
from accusation. Because one cannot lust after those things from
which he is not restrained, and even if he lusted after them, he would
not be blamed. For lust is not directed to things which are
before us, and subject to our power, but to those which are before us,
and not in our power. For how should one care for a thing which
is neither forbidden nor necessary to him? And for this reason it
is said, “I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou
shalt not covet.”2904
For when (our first parents) heard,
“Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not
eat of it; for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely
die,”2905
then they
conceived lust, and gathered it. Therefore was it said, I had not
known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet;” nor
would they have desired to eat, except it had been said, “Thou
shalt not eat of it.” For it was thence that sin took
occasion to deceive me. For when the law was given, the devil had
it in his power to work lust in me; “for without the law, sin was
dead;”2906
which means
“when the law was not given, sin could not be
committed.” But I was alive and blameless before the law,
having no commandment in accordance with which it was necessary to
live; “but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I
died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to
be unto death.”2907
For after God had given the law,
and had commanded me what I ought to do, and what I ought not to do,
the devil wrought lust in me. For the promise of God which was
given to me, this was for life and incorruption, so that obeying it I
might have ever-blooming life and joy unto incorruption; but to him who
disobeyed it, it would issue in death. But the devil, whom he
calls sin, because he is the author of sin, taking occasion by the
commandment to deceive me to disobedience, deceived and slew me, thus
rendering me subject to the condemnation, “In the day that thou
eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”2908
“Wherefore the law is holy,
and the commandment holy, and just and good;”2909
because it was given, not for injury, but
for safety; for let us not suppose that God makes anything useless or
hurtful. What then? “Was then that which is good made
death unto me?”2910
namely, that which was given as a law, that it might be the cause of
the greatest good? “God forbid.” For it was not
the law of God that became the cause of my being brought into
subjection to corruption, but the devil; that he might be made
manifested who, through that which is good, wrought evil; that the
inventor of evil might become and be proved the greatest of all
sinners. “For we know that the law is
spiritual;”2911
and therefore
it can in no respect be injurious to any one; for spiritual things are
far removed from irrational lust and sin. “But I am carnal,
sold under sin;”2912
which means: But I being carnal, and being placed between good
and evil as a voluntary agent, am so that I may have it in my power to
choose what I will. For “behold I set before thee life and
death;”2913
meaning that
death would result from disobedience of the spiritual law, that is of
the commandment; and from obedience to the carnal law, that is the
counsel of the serpent; for by such a choice “I am sold” to
the devil, fallen under sin. Hence evil, as though besieging me,
cleaves to me and dwells in me, justice giving me up to be sold to the
Evil One, in consequence of having violated the law. Therefore
also the expressions: “That which I do, I allow not,”
and “what I hate, that do I,”2914
are not to be understood of doing evil,
but of only thinking it. For it is not in our power to think or
not to think of improper things, but to act or not to act upon our
thoughts. For we cannot hinder thoughts from coming into our
minds, since we receive them when they are inspired into us from
without; but we are able to abstain from obeying them and acting upon
them. Therefore it is in our power to will not to think these
things; but not to bring it about that they shall pass away, so as not
to come into the mind again; for this does not lie in our power, as I
said; which is the meaning of that statement, “The good that I
would, I do not;”2915
for I do not will to think the things which injure me; for this good is
altogether innocent. But “the good that I would, I do not;
but the evil which I would not, that I do;” not willing to think,
and yet thinking what I do not will. And consider whether it was
not for these very things that David entreated God, grieving that he
thought of those things which he did not will: “O cleanse
Thou me from my secret faults. Keep Thy servant also from
presumptuous sins, lest they get the dominion over me; so shall I be
undefiled, and innocent from the great offence.”2916
And the
apostle too, in another place: “Casting down imaginations,
and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God,
and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of
Christ.”2917
II. But if any one should venture to oppose this
statement, and reply, that the apostle teaches that we hate not only the evil which is
in thought, but that we do that which we will not, and we hate it even
in the very act of doing it, for he says, “The good which I
would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I
do;”2918
if he who says
so speaks the truth, let us ask him to explain what was the evil which
the apostle hated and willed not to do, but did; and the good which he
willed to do, but did not; and conversely, whether as often as he
willed to do good, so often he did not do the good which he willed, but
did the evil which he willed not? And how he can say, when
exhorting us to shake off all manner of sin, “Be ye followers of
me, even as I also am of Christ?”2919
Thus he meant the things already
mentioned which he willed not to do, not to be done, but only to be
thought of. For how otherwise could he be an exact imitation of
Christ? It would be excellent then, and most delightful, if we
had not those who oppose us, and contend with us; but since this is
impossible, we cannot do what we will. For we will not to have
those who lead us to passion, for then we could be saved without
weariness and effort; but that does not come to pass which we will, but
that which we will not. For it is necessary, as I said, that we
should be tried. Let us not then, O my soul, let us not give in
to the Evil One; but putting on “the whole armour of God,”
which is our protection, let us have “the breastplate of
righteousness, and your feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel
(of peace). Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye
shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And
take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit, which is the
Word of God,”2920
that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil;
“casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth
itself against the knowledge of Christ,”2921
“for we wrestle not against flesh
and blood;”2922
“for
that which I do, I allow not; for what I would, that do I not:
but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not,
I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I
that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in
me—that is, in my flesh—dwelleth no good
thing.”2923
And this
is rightly said. For remember how it has been already shown that,
from the time when man went astray and disobeyed the law, thence sin,
receiving its birth from his disobedience, dwelt in him. For thus
a commotion was stirred up, and we were filled with agitations and
foreign imaginations, being emptied of the divine inspiration and
filled with carnal desire, which the cunning serpent infused into
us. And, therefore, God invented death for our sakes, that He
might destroy sin, lest rising up in us immortals, as I said, it should
be immortal. When the apostle says, “for I know that in
me—that is, in my flesh—dwelleth no good thing,” by
which words he means to indicate that sin dwells in us, from the
transgression, through lust; out of which, like young shoots, the
imaginations of pleasure rise around us. For there are two kinds
of thoughts in us; the one which arises from the lust which lies in the
body, which, as I said, came from the craft of the Evil Spirit; the
other from the law, which is in accordance with the commandment, which
we had implanted in us as a natural law, stirring up our thoughts to
good, when we delight in the law of God according to our mind, for this
is the inner man; but in the law of the devil according to the lust
which dwells in the flesh. For he who wars against and opposes
the law of God, that is, against the tendency of the mind to good, is
the same who stirs up the carnal and sensual impulses to
lawlessness.
III. For the apostle here sets forth
clearly, as I think, three laws: One in accordance with the good
which is implanted in us, which clearly he calls the law of the
mind. One the law which arises from the assault of evil, and
which often draws on the soul to lustful fancies, which, he
says,” wars against the law of the mind.”2924
And the third, which is in
accordance with sin, settled in the flesh from lust, which he calls the
“law of sin which dwells in our members;”2925
which the Evil One, urging on, often
stirs up against us, driving us to unrighteousness and evil
deeds. For there seems to be in ourselves one thing which is
better and another which is worse. And when that which is in its
nature better is about to become more powerful than that which is
worse, the whole mind is carried on to that which is good; but when
that which is worse increases and overbalances, man is on the contrary
urged on to evil imaginations. On account of which the apostle
prays to be delivered from it, regarding it as death and destruction;
as also does the prophet when he says, “Cleanse Thou me from my
secret faults.”2926
And the same is denoted by the
words, “For I delight in the law of God after the inward man; but
I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind,
and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my
members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the
body of this death?”2927
By which he does not mean that
the body is death, but the law of sin which is in his members, lying
hidden in us through
the transgression, and ever deluding the soul to the death of
unrighteousness. And he immediately adds, clearly showing from
what kind of death he desired to be delivered, and who he was who
delivered him, “I thank God, through Jesus
Christ.”2928
And
it should be considered, if he said that this body was death, O
Aglaophon, as you supposed, he would not afterwards mention Christ as
delivering him from so great an evil. For in that case what a
strange thing should we have had from the advent of Christ? And
how could the apostle have said this, as being able to be delivered
from death by the advent of Christ; when it was the lot of all to die
before Christ’s coming into the world? And, therefore, O
Aglaophon, he says not that this body was death, but the sin which
dwells in the body through lust, from which God has delivered him by
the coming of Christ. “For the law of the Spirit of life in
Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death;” so
that “He that raised up Jesus from the dead shall also quicken
your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you;” having
“condemned sin” which is in the body to its destruction;
“that the righteousness of the law”2929
| 2929
Rom. viii. 2, 11, 3,
4. | of nature which draws us to good,
and is in accordance with the commandment, might be kindled and
manifested. For the good which “the law” of nature
“could not do, in that it was weak,” being overcome by the
lust which lies in the body, God gave strength to accomplish,
“sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh;” so
that sin being condemned, to its destruction, so that it should never
bear fruit in the flesh, the righteousness of the law of nature might
be fulfilled, abounding in the obedience of those who walk not
according to the lust of the flesh, but according to the lust and
guidance of the Spirit; “for the law of the Spirit of
life,” which is the Gospel, being different from earlier laws,
leading by its preaching to obedience and the remission of sins,
delivered us from the law of sin and death, having conquered entirely
sin which reigned over our flesh.
IV. He2930
says that plants are neither nourished
nor increased from the earth. For he says, let any one consider
how the earth can be changed and taken up into the substance of
trees. For then the place of the earth which lay around, and was
drawn up through the roots into the whole compass of the tree, where
the tree grew, must needs be hollowed out; so that such a thing as they
hold respecting the flux of bodies, is absurd. For how could the
earth first enter in through the roots into the trunks of the plants,
and then, passing through their channels into all their branches, be
turned into leaves and fruit? Now there are large trees, such as
the cedar, pines, firs, which annually bear much leaves and fruit; and
one may see that they consume none of the surrounding earth into the
bulk and substance of the tree. For it would be necessary, if it
were true that the earth went up through the roots, and was turned into
wood, that the whole place where the earth lay round about them should
be hollowed out; for it is not the nature of a dry substance to flow
in, like a moist substance, and fill up the place of that which moves
away. Moreover, there are fig-trees, and other similar plants,
which frequently grow in the buildings of monuments, and yet they never
consume the entire building into themselves. But if any one
should choose to collect their fruit and leaves for many years, he
would perceive that their bulk had become much larger than the earth
upon the monuments. Hence it is absurd to suppose that the earth
is consumed into the crop of fruits and leaves; and even if they were
all made by it, they would be so only as using it for their seat and
place. For bread is not made without a mill, and a place, and
time, and fire; and yet bread is not made out of any of these
things. And the same may be said of a thousand other
things.
V. Now the followers of Origen bring forward
this passage, “For we know that if our earthly house of this
tabernacle were dissolved,”2931
and so forth, to disprove the
resurrection of the body, saying that the “tabernacle” is
the body, and the “house not made with hands” “in the
heavens” is our spiritual clothing. Therefore, says the
holy Methodius, by this earthly house must metaphorically2932
| 2932
The Word means literally, “by an abuse, or
misapplication;” but the author’s meaning is very nearly
that expressed in the text.—Tr. | be understood
our short-lived existence here, and not this tabernacle; for if you
decide to consider the body as being the earthly house which is
dissolved, tell us what is the tabernacle whose house is
dissolved? For the tabernacle is one thing, and the house of the
tabernacle another, and still another we who have the tabernacle.
“For,” he says, “if our earthly house of this
tabernacle be dissolved”—by which he points out that the
souls are ourselves, that the body is a tabernacle, and that the house
of the tabernacle figuratively represents the enjoyment of the flesh in
the present life. If, then, this present life of the body be
dissolved like a house, we shall have that which is not made with hands
in the heavens. “Not made with hands,” he says, to
point out the difference; because this life may be said to be made with
hands, seeing that all the employments and pursuits of life are carried
on by the hands of men. For the body, being the workmanship of
God, is not said to be made with hands, inasmuch as it is not formed by the arts of
men. But if they shall say that it is made with hands, because it
was the workmanship of God, then our souls also, and the angels, and
the spiritual clothing in the heavens, are made with hands; for all
these things, also, are the workmanship of God. What, then, is
the house which is made with hands? It is, as I have said, the
short-lived existence which is sustained by human hands. For God
said, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat
bread;”2933
and when that
life is dissolved, we have the life which is not made with hands.
As also the Lord showed, when He said: “Make to yourselves
friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may
receive you into everlasting habitations.”2934
For what the Lord then called
“habitations,”2935
the apostle here calls
“clothing.”2936
And what He there calls
“friends” “of unrighteousness,” the apostle
here calls “houses” “dissolved.” As then,
when the days of our present life shall fail, those good deeds of
beneficence to which we have attained in this unrighteous life, and in
this “world” which “lieth in
wickedness,”2937
will receive our souls; so when this
perishable life shall be dissolved, we shall have the habitation which
is before the resurrection—that is, our souls shall be with God,
until we shall receive the new house which is prepared for us, and
which shall never fall. Whence also “we groan,”
“not for that we would be unclothed,” as to the body,
“but clothed upon”2938
by it in the other life. For
the “house in heaven,” with which we desire to be
“clothed,” is immortality; with which, when we are clothed,
every weakness and mortality will be entirely “swallowed
up” in it, being consumed by endless life. “For we
walk by faith, not by sight;”2939
that is, for we still go forward by
faith, viewing the things which are beyond with a darkened
understanding, and not clearly, so that we may see these things, and
enjoy them, and be in them. “Now this I say, brethren, that
flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth
corruption inherit incorruption.”2940
By flesh, he did not mean flesh
itself, but the irrational impulse towards the lascivious pleasures of
the soul. And therefore when he says, “Flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God,” he adds the explanation,
“Neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” Now
corruption is not the thing which is corrupted, but the thing which
corrupts. For when death prevails the body sinks into corruption;
but when life still remains in it, it stands uncorrupted.
Therefore, since the flesh is the boundary between corruption and
incorruption, not being either corruption or incorruption, it was
vanquished by corruption on account of pleasure, although it was the
work and the possession of incorruption. Therefore it became
subject to corruption. When, then, it had been overcome by
corruption, and was given over to death for chastisement, He did not
leave it to be vanquished and given over as an inheritance to
corruption; but again conquering death by the resurrection, He restored
it to incorruption, that corruption might not inherit incorruption, but
incorruption that which is corruptible. And therefore the apostle
answers, “This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this
mortal immortality.”2941
But the corruptible and mortal
putting on incorruption and immortality, what else is this, but that
which is sown in corruption rising in incorruption?2942
For, “as we have borne the
image of the earthly, we shall also bear the image of the
heavenly.”2943
For
the “image of the earthly” which we have borne refers to
the saying, “Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt
return.”2944
And
the “image of the heavenly is the resurrection from the dead and
incorruption.”
VI. Now Justin of Neapolis,2945
| 2945
Commonly known as St. Justin Martyr.—Tr. [See his treatise On the Resurrection,
vol. i. p. 295; also On Life, p. 198, this series.] | a man not far
removed either from the times or from the virtues of the apostles, says
that that which is mortal is inherited, but that life inherits; and
that flesh dies, but that the kingdom of heaven lives. When then,
Paul says that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of
heaven,”2946
he does not
so speak as seeming to slight the regeneration of the flesh, but as
teaching that the kingdom of God, which is eternal life, is not
inherited by the body, but the body by life. For if the kingdom
of God, which is life, were inherited by the body, it would happen that
life was swallowed up by corruption. But now life inherits that
which is mortal, that death may be swallowed up of life unto victory,
and that which is corruptible appear the possession of incorruption;
being made free from death and sin, and become the slave and subject of
immortality, that the body may become the possession of incorruption,
and not incorruption of the body.
VII. Now the passage, “The dead in Christ
shall rise first: then we which are alive,” St. Methodius
thus explains: Those are our bodies; for the souls are we
ourselves, who, rising, resume that which is dead from the earth; so
that being caught up with them to meet the Lord, we may gloriously
celebrate the splendid festival of the resurrection, because we have received our
everlasting tabernacles, which shall no longer die nor be
dissolved.
VIII. I saw, he says, on Olympus2947
| 2947
Cf. p. 368, supra. [Pyragnos = fire-proof
agnos.] | (Olympus is a
mountain in Lycia), a fire spontaneously arising on the top of the
mountain from the earth, beside which is the plant Puragnos, so
flourishing, green, and shady, that it seemed rather as though it grew
from a fountain. For what cause, although they are by nature
corruptible, and their bodies consumed by fire, was this plant not only
not burnt, but rather more flourishing, although in its nature it is
easily burnt, and the fire was burning about its roots? Then I
cast branches of trees out of the surrounding wood into the place where
the fire streamed forth, and, immediately bursting up into flame, they
were converted into cinders. What then is the meaning of this
contradiction? This God appointed as a sign and prelude of the
coming Day, that we may know that, when all things are overwhelmed by
fire, the bodies which are endowed with chastity and righteousness
shall pass through it as though it were cold water.
IX. Consider, he says, whether too the
blessed John, when he says, “And the sea gave up the dead which
were in it: and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in
them,”2948
does not mean
the parts which are given up by the elements for the reconstruction of
each one? By the sea is meant the moist element; by
hell,2949
the air,
derived from ἀειδές, because it is
invisible, as was said by Origen; and by death, the earth, because
those who die are laid in it; whence also it is called in the Psalms
the “dust of death,”2950
Christ saying that He is brought
“into the dust of death.”
X. For, he says, whatever is composed and consists
of pure air and pure fire, and is of like substance with the angelic
beings, cannot have the nature of earth and water; since it would then
be earthy. And of such nature, and consisting of such things,
Origen has shown that the body of man shall be which shall rise, which
he also said would be spiritual.
XI. And he asks what will be the appearance
of the risen body, when this human form, as according to him useless,
shall wholly disappear; since it is the most lovely of all things which
are combined in living creatures, as being the form which the Deity
Himself employs, as the most wise Paul explains: “For a man
indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and
glory of God;”2951
in accordance with which the rational bodies of the angels are set in
order? will it be circular, or polygonal, or cubical, or
pyramidal? For there are very many kinds of forms; but this is
impossible.2952
| 2952
[Justin Martyr, vol. i. p. 295, this series.] | Well then,
what are we to think of the assertion, that the godlike shape is to be
rejected as more ignoble, for he himself allows that the soul is like
the body, and that man is to rise again without hands or
feet?
XII. The transformation, he says, is the
restoration into an impassible and glorious state. For now the
body is a body of desire and of humiliation,2953
and therefore Daniel was called “a
man of desires.”2954
But then it will be transfigured
into an impassible body, not by the change of the arrangement of the
members, but by its not desiring carnal pleasures.
Then he says, refuting Origen, Origen therefore thinks
that the same flesh will not be restored to the soul, but that the form
of each, according to the appearance by which the flesh is now
distinguished, shall arise stamped upon another spiritual body; so that
every one will again appear the same form; and that this is the
resurrection which is promised. For, he says, the material body
being fluid, and in no wise remaining in itself, but wearing out and
being replaced around the appearance by which its shape is
distinguished, and by which the figure is contained, it is necessary
that the resurrection should be only that of the form.
XIII. Then, after a little, he says:
If then, O Origen, you maintain that the resurrection of the body
changed into a spiritual body is to be expected only in appearance, and
put forth the vision of Moses and Elias as a most convincing proof of
it; saying that they appeared after their departure from life,
preserving no different appearance from that which they had from the
beginning; in the same way will be the resurrection of all men.
But Moses and Elias arose and appeared with this form of which you
speak, before Christ suffered and rose. How then could Christ be
celebrated by prophets and apostles as “the first begotten of the
dead?”2955
For if the
Christ is believed to be the first begotten of the dead, He is the
first begotten of the dead as having risen before all others. But
Moses appeared to the apostles before Christ suffered, having this form
in which you say the resurrection is fulfilled. Hence then, there
is no resurrection of the form without the flesh. For either
there is a resurrection of the form as you teach, and then Christ is no
longer “the first begotten of the dead,” from the fact that
souls appeared before Him, having this form after death; or He is truly
the first begotten, and it is quite impossible that any should
have been thought meet for a
resurrection before Him, so as not to die again. But if no one
arose before Him, and Moses and Elias appeared to the apostles not
having flesh, but only its appearance, the resurrection in the flesh is
clearly manifested. For it is most absurd that the resurrection
should be set forth only in form, since the souls, after their
departure from the flesh, never appear to lay aside the form which, he
says, rises again. But if that remains with them, so that it
cannot be taken away, as with the soul of Moses and Elias; and neither
perishes, as you think, nor is destroyed, but is everywhere present
with them; then surely that form which never fell cannot be said to
rise again.
XIV. But if any one, finding this inadmissible,
answers, But how then, if no one rose before Christ went down into
Hades, are several recorded as having risen before Him? Among
whom is the son of the widow of Sarepta, and the son of the Shunammite,
and Lazarus. We must say: These rose to die again; but we
are speaking of those who shall never die after their rising. And
if any one should speak doubtfully concerning the soul of Elias, as
that the Scriptures say that he was taken up in the flesh, and we say
that he appeared to the apostles divested of the flesh, we must say,
that to allow that he appeared to the apostles in the flesh is more in
favour of our argument. For it is shown by this case that the
body is susceptible of immortality, as was also proved by the
translation of Enoch. For if he could not receive immortality, he
could not remain in a state of insensibility so long a time. If,
then, he appeared with the body, that was truly after he was dead, but
certainly not as having arisen from the dead. And this, we may
say, if we agree with Origen when he says that the same form is given
to the soul after death; when it is separated from the body, which is
of all things the most impossible, from the fact that the form of the
flesh was destroyed before by its changes, as also the form of the
melted statue before its entire dissolution. Because the quality
cannot be separated from the material, so as to exist by itself; for
the shape which disappears around the brass is separated from the
melted statue, and has not longer a substantial existence.
XV. Since the form is said to be separated in
death from the flesh, come, let us consider in how many ways that which
is separated is said to be separated. Now a thing is said to be
separated from another either in act and subsistence, or in thought; or
else in act, but not in subsistence. As if, for instance, one
should separate from each other wheat and barley which had been mingled
together; in as far as they are separated in motion, they are said to
be separated in act; in as far as they stand apart when separated, they
are said to be separated in subsistence. They are separated in
thought when we separate matter from its qualities, and qualities from
matter; in act, but not in subsistence, when a thing separated from
another no longer exists, not having a substantive existence. And
it may be observed that it is so also in mechanics, when one looks upon
a statue or a brazen horse melted. For, when he considers these
things, he will see their natural form changing; and they alter into
another figure from which the original form disappears. For if
any one should melt down the works formed into the semblance of a man
or a horse, he will find the appearance of the form disappearing, but
the material itself remaining. It is, therefore, untenable to
say, that the form shall arise in nowise corrupted, but that the body
in which the form was stamped shall be destroyed.
XVI. But he says that it will be so; for it will
be changed in a spiritual body. Therefore, it is necessary to
confess that the very same form as at first does not arise, from its
being changed and corrupted with the flesh. For although it be
changed into a spiritual body, that will not be properly the original
substance, but a certain resemblance of it, fashioned in an ethereal
body. If, however, it is not the same form, nor yet the body
which arises, then it is another in the place of the first. For
that which is like, being different from that which it resembles,
cannot be that very first thing in accordance with which it was
made.
XVII. Moreover, he says that that is the
appearance or form which shows forth the identity of the members in the
distinctive character of the form.
XVIII. And, when Origen allegorises that
which is said by the prophet Ezekiel concerning the resurrection of the
dead, and perverts it to the return of the Israelites from their
captivity in Babylon, the saint in refuting him, after many other
remarks, says this also: For neither did they2956
obtain a perfect liberty, nor did they
overcome their enemies by a greater power, and dwell again in
Jerusalem; and when they frequently intended to build (the temple),
they were prevented by other nations. Whence, also, they were
scarce able to build that in forty-six years, which Solomon completed
from the foundations in seven years. But what need we say on this
subject? For from the time of Nebuchadnezzar, and those who after
him reigned over Babylon, until the time of the Persian expedition
against the Assyrians, and the empire of Alexander, and the war which
was stirred up by the Romans against the Jews, Jerusalem was six times
overthrown by its enemies. And this is recorded by Josephus, who says:
“Jerusalem was taken in the second year of the reign of
Vespasian. It had been taken before five times; but now for the
second time it was destroyed. For Asochæus, king of Egypt,
and after him Antiochus, next Pompey, and after these Sosius, with
Herod, took the city and burnt it; but before these, the king of
Babylon conquered and destroyed it.”
XIX. He says that Origen holds these
opinions which he refutes. And there may be a doubt concerning
Lazarus and the rich man. The simpler persons think that these
things were spoken as though both were receiving their due for the
things which they had done in life in their bodies; but the more
accurate think that, since no one is left in life after the
resurrection, these things do not happen at the resurrection. For
the rich man says: “I have five brethren;…lest they
also come into this place of torment,”2957
send Lazarus, that he may tell them of
those things which are here. And, therefore, if we ask respecting
the “tongue,” and the “finger,” and
“Abraham’s bosom,” and the reclining there, it may
perhaps be that the soul receives in the change a form similar in
appearance to its gross and earthly body. If, then, any one of
those who have fallen asleep is recorded as having appeared, in the
same way he has been seen in the form which he had when he was in the
flesh. Besides, when Samuel appeared, it is clear that, being
seen, he was clothed in a body;2958
and this must especially be admitted,
if we are pressed by arguments which prove that the essence of the soul
is incorporeal, and is manifested by itself.2959
| 2959 The
reading of Jahn, “καθ᾽
ἑαυτήν,” is here
adopted.—Tr. | But the rich man in torment, and
the poor man who was comforted in the bosom of Abraham, are said, the
one to be punished in Hades, and the other to be comforted in
Abraham’s bosom, before the appearing of the Saviour, and before
the end of the world, and therefore before the resurrection; teaching
that now already, at the change, the soul rises a body.
Wherefore, the saint says as follows: Setting forth that the
soul, after its removal hence, has a form similar in appearance to this
sensitive body; does Origen represent the soul, after Plato, as being
incorporeal? And how should that which, after removal from the
world, is said to have need of a vehicle and a clothing, so that it
might not be found naked, be in itself other than incorporeal?
But if it be incorporeal, must it not also be incapable of
passion? For it follows, from its being incorporeal, that it is
also impassible and imperturbable. If, then, it was not
distracted by any irrational desire, neither was it changed by a pained
or suffering body. For neither can that which is incorporeal
sympathize with a body, nor a body with that which is incorporeal,
if,2960
indeed, the soul
should seem to be incorporeal, in accordance with what has been
said. But if it sympathize with the body, as is proved by the
testimony of those who appear, it cannot be incorporeal.
Therefore God alone is celebrated, as the unbegotten, independent, and
unwearied nature; being incorporeal, and therefore invisible; for
“no man hath seen God.”2961
But souls, being rational bodies,
are arranged by the Maker and Father of all things into members which
are visible to reason, having received this impression. Whence,
also, in Hades, as in the case of Lazarus and the rich man, they are
spoken of as having a tongue, and a finger, and the other members; not
as though they had with them another invisible body, but that the souls
themselves, naturally, when entirely stripped of their covering, are
such according to their essence.
XX. The saint says at the end: The
words, “For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived,
that He might be Lord both of the dead and living,”2962
must be taken
as referring to souls and bodies; the souls being the living, as
being immortal, and the bodies being dead.
XXI. Since the body of man is more honourable than
other living creatures, because it is said to have been formed by the
hands of God, and because it has attained to be the vehicle of the
reasonable soul; how is it that it is so short-lived, shorter even than
some of the irrational creatures? Is it not clear that its
long-lived existence will be after the resurrection? E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
