Homily XLI.

1 Cor. xv. 35, 36

But some one will say, How are the dead raised? and with what manner of body do they come? Thou foolish one, that which thou thyself sowest is not quickened, except it die.

Gentle and lowly as the apostle is to a great degree every where, he here adopts a style rather pungent, because of the impiety of the gainsayers. He is not however content with this, but he also employs reasons and examples, subduing thereby even the very contentious. And above he saith, “Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead;” but here he solves an objection brought in by the Gentiles. And see how again he abates the vehemence of his censure; in that he said not, “but perhaps ye will say,” but he set down the objector indefinitely, in order that, although employing his impetuous style with all freedom, he might not too severely wound his hearers. And he states two difficulties, one touching the manner of the resurrection, the other, the kind of bodies. For of both they on their part made a question, saying, “How is that which hath been dissolved raised up?” and, “with what manner of body do they come?” But what means, “with what manner of body?” It is as if they had said, “with this which hath been wasted, which hath perished, or with some other?”

Then, to point out that the objects of their enquiry are not questionable but admitted points, he at once meets them more sharply, saying, “Thou foolish one, that which thou thyself sowest is not quickened, except it die.” Which we also are wont to do in the case of those who gainsay things acknowledged.

[2.] And wherefore did he not at once appeal to the power of God? Because he is discoursing with unbelievers. For when his discourse is addressed to believers, he hath not much need of reasons. Wherefore having said elsewhere, “He shall change the body of your humiliation, that it may be fashioned like to the body of his glory,” (Philip. iii. 2.) and having indicated somewhat more than the resurrection, he stated no analogies, but instead of any demonstration, brought forward the power of God, going on to say, “according to the working whereby He is able to subject all things to Himself.” But here he also urges reasons. That is, having established it from the Scriptures, he adds also in what comes after, these things over and above, with an eye to them who do not obey the Scriptures; and he saith, “O foolish one, that which Thou sowest:” i.e., “from thyself thou hast the proof of these things, by what thou doest every day, and doubtest thou yet? Therefore do I call thee foolish because of the things daily done by thine own self thou art ignorant, and being thyself an artificer of a resurrection, thou doubtest concerning God.” Wherefore very emphatically he said, “what Thou sowest³⁰⁸

308 σὺ ο σπείρεις.

309 “Our apostle’s inference is as firm and strong, as it is emphatical; Stulte!  Tu quod seminas &c. O fool!  That which THOU sowest &c.  The force or emphasis may be gathered thus. If God doth give a body unto that seed which thou sowest for thine own use and benefit, much more will the same God give a body unto the seed which He Himself doth sow, seeing the end why He sows it, is not thy temporal benefit or commodity, but His own immortal glory.” Dr. Jackson’s Works, vol. iii. 438. See also vol. iii. 433–443.

And see how he uses expressions appropriate to the purpose he had in view: thus, “it is not quickened,” saith he, “except it die.” Leaving, you see, the terms appropriate to seed, as that “it buds,” and “grows,” and “is dissolved,” he adopts those which correspond to our flesh, viz. “it is quickened,” and, “except it die;” which do not properly belong to seeds, but to bodies.

And he said not, “after it is dead it lives,” but, which is a greater thing, “therefore it lives, because it dies.” Seest thou, what I am always observing, that he continually gives their argument the contrary turn? Thus what they made a sure sign of our not rising again, the same he makes a demonstration of our rising. For they said, “the body rises not again, because it is dead.” What then doth he, retorting their argument, say? “Nay, but unless it died, it could not rise again: and therefore it rises again, because it died.” For as Christ more clearly signifies this very thing, in the words, “Except a grain of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth by itself alone: but if it die, it beareth much fruit:” (John xii. 24.) thence also Paul, drawing this example, said not, “it doth not live,” but, “is not quickened;” again assuming the power of God and showing that not the nature of the ground, but God Himself, brings it all to pass.

And what can be the reason that he did not bring that forward, which was more akin to the subject: I mean, the seed of mankind? (For our generation too begins from a sort of decay, even as that of the corn.) Because it was not of equal force, but the latter was a more complete instance: for he wants a case of something that perished entirely, whereas this was but a part; wherefore he rather alleges the other. Besides, that proceeds from a living body and falls into a living womb; but here it is no flesh, but the earth into which the seed is cast, and into the same it is dissolved, like the body which is dead. Wherefore on this account too the example was more appropriate.

[3.] Ver. 37. “And he who soweth, soweth not that body that shall be³¹⁰

310 This seems like a different reading: but it appears afterwards that S. Chrysostom read the verse as it stands. He quotes it therefore here in substance, not verbatim.

For the things before spoken meet the question, “how they are raised;” but this, the doubt, “with what manner of body they come.” But what is, “thou sowest not that body which shall be?” Not an entire ear of corn, nor new grain. For here his discourse no longer regards the resurrection, but the manner of the resurrection, what is the kind of body which shall rise again; as whether it be of the same kind, or better and more glorious. And he takes both from the same analogy, intimating that it will be much better.

But the heretics, considering none of these things, dart in upon us and say, “one body falls and another body rises again. How then is there a resurrection? For the resurrection is of that which was fallen. But where is that wonderful and surprising trophy over death, if one body fall and another rise again? For he will no longer appear to have given back that which he took captive. And how can the alleged analogy suit the things before mentioned?” Why, it is not one substance that is sown, and another that is raised, but the same substance improved. Else neither will Christ have resumed the same body when He became the first-fruits of them that rise again: but according to you He threw aside the former body, although it had not sinned, and took another. Whence then is that other? For this body was from the Virgin, but that, whence was it? Seest thou to what absurdity the argument hath come round? For wherefore shows He the very prints of the nails? Was it not to prove that it is that same body which was crucified, and the same again that rose from the dead? And what means also His type of Jonah? For surely it was not one Jonah that was swallowed up and another that was cast out upon dry land. And why did He also say, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up?” For that which was destroyed, the same clearly He raised again. Wherefore also the Evangelist added, that “He spake of the temple of His body.” (John ii. 19; 21.)

What is that then which he saith, “Thou sowest not the body that shall be?” i.e. not the ear of corn: for it is the same, and not the same; the same, because the substance is the same; but not the same, because this is more excellent, the substance remaining the same but its beauty becoming greater, and the same body rising up new. Since if this were not so, there were no need of a resurrection, I mean if it were not to rise again improved. For why did He at all pull down His house, except He were about to build it more glorious?

This now, you see, he said to them who think that it is utter corruption³¹¹

311 τὴν αὐτὴν φθοράν. The reading is perhaps corrupt.

Ver. 38. “But God giveth it a body even as it pleased Him.”

“Yes,” saith one, “but in that case it is the work of nature.” Of what nature, tell me? For in that case likewise God surely doeth the whole; not nature, nor the earth, nor the rain. Wherefore also he making these things manifest, leaves out both earth and rain, atmosphere, sun, and hands of husbandmen, and subjoins, “God giveth it a body as it pleased Him.” Do not thou therefore curiously inquire, nor busy thyself with the how and in what manner, when thou hearest of the power and will of God.

“And to each seed a body of its own.” Where then is the alien matter which they speak of? For He giveth to each “his own.” So that when he saith, “Thou sowest not that which shall be,” he saith not this, that one substance is raised up instead of another, but that it is improved, that it is more glorious. For “to each of the seeds,” saith he, “a body of its own.”

[4.] From hence in what follows, he introducing also the difference of the resurrection which shall then be. For do not suppose, because grain is sown and all come up ears of corn, that therefore there is also in the resurrection an equality of honor. For in the first place, neither in seeds is there only one rank, but some are more valuable, and some inferior. Wherefore also he added, “to each seed a body of its own.”

However, he is not content with this, but seeks another difference greater and more manifest. For that thou mayest not, when hearing, as I said, that all rise again, suppose that all enjoy the same reward; he laid before even in the preceding verses the seeds of this thought, saying, “But each in his own order.” But he brings it out here also more clearly, saying,

Ver. 39. “All flesh is not the same flesh.” For why speak I, saith he, in respect of seeds?  In respect of bodies let us agitate this point, concerning which we are discoursing now. Wherefore also he addeth, and saith,

“But there is one flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of birds, and another of fishes.”

Ver. 40. “There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.”

Ver. 41. “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.”

And what means he by these expressions? Wherefore from the resurrection of the body did he throw himself into the discourse of the stars and the sun? He did not throw himself out, neither did he break off from his purpose; far from it: but he still keeps to it. For whereas he had established the doctrine concerning the resurrection, he intimates in what follows that great will be then the difference of glory, though there be but one resurrection. And for the present he divides the whole into two: into “bodies celestial,” and “bodies terrestrial.” For that the bodies are raised again, he signified by the corn:  but that they are not all in the same glory, he signifies by this. For as the disbelief of the resurrection makes men supine, so again it makes them indolent to think that all are vouchsafed the same reward. Wherefore he corrects both. And the one in the preceeding verses he had completed; but this he begins now. And having made two ranks, of the righteous and of sinners, these same two he subdivides again into many parts, signifying that neither righteous nor sinners shall obtain the same; neither righteous men, all of them, alike with other righteous, nor sinners with other sinners.

Now he makes, you see, first, one separation between righteous and sinners, where he says, “bodies celestial, and bodies terrestrial:” by the “terrestrial” intimating the latter, and by the “celestial,” the former. Then farther he introduces a difference of sinners from sinners, saying, “All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of fishes, another of birds, and another of beasts.” And yet all are bodies; but some are in more, and some in lesser vileness. And that in their manner of living too, and in their very constitution.

And having said this, he ascends again to the heaven, saying, “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon.” For as in the earthly bodies there is a difference, so also in the heavenly; and that difference no ordinary one, but reaching even to the uttermost: there being not only a difference between sun and moon, and stars, but also between stars and stars. For what though they be all in the heaven? yet some have a larger, others a less share of glory. What do we learn from hence? That although they be all in God’s kingdom, all shall not enjoy the same reward; and though all sinners be in hell, all shall not endure the same punishment. Wherefore he added,

Ver. 42. “So also is the resurrection of the dead.”

“So,” How? with considerable difference. Then leaving this doctrine as sufficiently proved, he again comes to the proof itself of the resurrection and the manner of it, saying,

[5.] “It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.” And observe his consideration. As in the case of seeds, he used the term proper to bodies, saying, “it is not quickened, except it die:” so in the case of bodies, the expression belonging to seeds, saying, “it is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.” He said not, “is produced³¹²

312 φύεται.

Ver. 43. “It is sown in dishonor.” For what is more unsightly than a corpse in dissolution? “It is raised in glory.”

“It is sown in weakness.” For before thirty days the whole is gone, and the flesh cannot keep itself together nor hold out for one day. “It is raised in power.” For there shall nothing prevail against it for all the future.

Here is why he stood in need of those former analogies, lest many on hearing of these things, that they are “raised in incorruption and glory and power,” might suppose that there is no difference among those who rise again. For all indeed rise again, both in power and in incorruption; and in this glory of their incorruption yet are not all in the same state of honor and safety.

Ver. 44. “It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.”

What sayest thou? Is not “this” body spiritual? It is indeed spiritual, but that will be much more so. For now oftentimes both the abundant grace of the Holy Ghost flies away on men’s committing great sins; and again, the Spirit continuing present, the life³¹³

313 τῆς ψυχῆς ἡ ζωὴ:  “the life of the animal soul:” alluding to the threefold being of the perfect man, in spirit, and soul, and body: c.f. 1 Thess. v. 23.

314 τούτου χωρίς. i.e., the remains, when deprived of the natural life, are an empty vessel without the Holy Ghost, in that Its quickening Power is not put forth in them for the time.

315 i.e. It is true the body may be called spiritual, because of the Spirit’s indwelling: but it is not wholly and entirely so. For sometimes the Spirit leaves men when they sin, and even when the Spirit does not leave them, vitality leaves the body, which then becomes untenanted; whereas at the resurrection the body being quickened, the Spirit remains in them for ever. [This seems to be a satisfactory explanation of a passage difficult in the original, (satis tenebricosa as Dr. Field says,) and quite uncertain as to the text. C.]

For either it was some such thing which he intimated by saying, “a spiritual body,” or that it shall be lighter and more subtle and such as even to be wafted upon air; or rather he meant both these. And if thou disbelieve the doctrine, behold the heavenly bodies which are so glorious and (for this time) so durable, and abide in undecaying tranquillity; and believe thou from hence, that God can also make these corruptible bodies incorruptible and much more excellent than those which are visible.

[6.] Ver. 45. “So also it is written, (Gen. ii. 7.) the first man Adam became a living soul: the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.”

And yet the one indeed is written, but the other not written. How then said he, “it is written?” He modified the expression according to the issue of events: as he is wont continually to do: and indeed as it is the way of every prophet. For so Jerusalem, the prophet said, should be “called a city of righteousness;” (Is. i. 26.) yet it was not so called. What then? Did the prophet speak false? By no means. For he is speaking of the issue of events. And that Christ too should be called Immanuel; (Is. vii. 14.) yet was he not so called. But the facts utter this voice; so also here, “the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.”

And these things he said that thou mayest learn that the signs and pledges both of the present life and of that which is to come have already come upon us; to wit, of the present life, Adam, and of the life to come, Christ. For since he sets down the better things as matters of hope, he signifies that their beginning hath already come to pass, and their root and their fountain been brought to light. But if the root and the fountain be evident to all, there is no need to doubt of the fruits. Wherefore he saith, “The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.” And elsewhere too, He “shall quicken your mortal bodies through His Spirit that dwelleth in you.” (Rom. vii. 11.) It is the Spirit’s work then to quicken.

Further, lest any should say, “why are the worse things the elder? and why hath the one sort, to wit, the natural, come to pass not merely as far as the first-fruits, but altogether; the other as far as the first-fruits only?”—he signifies that the principles also of each were so ordered³¹⁶

316 i.e. Why does the worst principle come first? Why is the natural principle wholly developed not only in Adam, the first-fruits, but in us and all mankind? And why is the spiritual principal which is to produce the resurrection, not yet developed in us, but only in Christ our first-fruits? The answer is, So is the will of God, by whose ordinance it is that the natural should come first, the spiritual afterwards.

Ver. 46. “For that is not first,” saith he, “which is spiritual, but that which is natural, then that which is spiritual.”

And he saith not, why, but is content with the ordinance of God, having the evidence from the facts testifying to that most excellent œconomy of God, and implying that our state is always going forward to the better; at the same time by this also adding credibility to his argument. For if the lesser have come to pass, much more ought we to expect the better.

[7.] Since then we are to enjoy so great blessings, let us take our station in this array, and bewail not the departed, but rather those that have ended their life ill. For so the husbandman, when he sees the grain dissolving, doth not mourn; rather, as long as he beholds it continuing solid in the ground he is in fear and trembling, but when he sees it dissolved rejoices. For the beginning of the future crop is its dissolving. So let us also then rejoice when the corruptible house falls, when the man is sown. And marvel not if he called the burial “a sowing;” for, in truth, this is the better sowing: inasmuch as that sowing is succeeded by deaths and labors and dangers and cares; but this, if we lived well, by crowns and rewards; and that, by corruption and death but this by incorruption and immortality, and those infinite blessings. To that kind of sowing there went embraces and pleasures and sleep: but to this, only a voice coming down from heaven, and all is at once brought to perfection. And he that rises again is no more led to a life full of toil, but to a place where anguish and sorrow and sighing are fled away.

If thou requirest protection and therefore mournest thy husband, betake thyself to God, the common Protector and Saviour and Benefactor of all, to that irresistible alliance, to that ready aid, to that abiding shelter which is every where present, and is as a wall unto us on every side.

“But your intercourse was a thing desirable and lovely.” I too know it. But if thou wilt trust sound reason with this grief, and wilt consider with thyself who hath taken him away, and that by nobly bearing it thou offerest thy mind as a sacrifice to our God, even this wave will not be too strong for thee to stem. And that which time brings to pass, the same do thou by thy self-command. But if thou shalt yield to weakness, thine emotion will cease indeed in time, but it will bring thee no reward.

And together with these reasons collect also examples, some in the present life, some in the Holy Scriptures. Consider that Abraham slew his own son, and neither shed a tear nor uttered a bitter word. “But he,” you say, “was Abraham.” Nay, thou surely hast been called to a nobler field of action³¹⁷

317 μεὶζονα σκάμματα.

[8.] “But I know not whither he hath gone,” say you. Wherefore knowest thou not, tell me? For according as he lived well or otherwise, it is evident whither he will go. “Nay, on this very account I lament,” say you, “because he departed being a sinner³¹⁸

318 Bingham observes, lib. xv. cap. 3. sect. 16. “Another reason for praying for the dead was, they conceived all men to die with some remainders of frailty and corruption, and therefore desired that God would deal with them according to His mercy, and not in strict justice according to their merits.” “These prayers,” he proceeds to say, see lib. xxiii. cap. 3. sect. 3. and 13. “are not made upon the Romish supposition of the soul’s being in purgatory or any place of torment, but on principles that perfectly overthrow it.” For they call those for whom they offer, Saints including among them the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and Prophets: and they represent them as having ‘pleased God,’ “being at rest,” “sleeping in Christ,” “departed in His Faith,” and other equivalent expressions. Vid. Brett’s Liturgies, p. 270–272. Ed. 1838. See also Bp. Bull, vol. ii. 261. Oxford Ed.

But grant that he departed with sin upon him, even on this account one ought to rejoice, that he was stopped short in his sins and added not to his iniquity; and help him as far as possible, not by tears, but by prayers and supplications and alms and offerings. For not unmeaningly have these things been devised, nor do we in vain make mention of the departed in the course of the divine mysteries, and approach God in their behalf, beseeching the Lamb Who is before us, Who taketh away the sin of the world;—not in vain, but that some refreshment may thereby ensue to them. Not in vain doth he that standeth by the altar cry out when the tremendous mysteries are celebrated, “For all that have fallen asleep in Christ, and for those who perform commemorations in their behalf³¹⁹

319 These expressions are not verbatim either in St. Chrysostom’s or in any other of the Liturgies translated by Brett, but in substance they are in all.

Let us then give them aid and perform commemoration for them. For if the children of Job were purged by the sacrifice of their father, why dost thou doubt that when we too offer for the departed, some consolation arises to them? since God is wont to grant the petitions of those who ask for others. And this Paul signified saying, “that in a manifold Person³²⁰

320 ἐν πολλῷ προσωπῷ: “in a great Person,” “the Person of a manifold Being, i.e., of the whole Church.” The common reading is ἐκ πολλῶν προσώπων. St. Chrysostom may have thought that the Apostle was alluding to the Liturgical Service as the voice of the whole mystical Body of Christ. See his comment on the place in Hom. 2 on 2 Cor. §. 3, 4. Ed. Bened. [The singular reading of Chrysostom in this place does not seem to be sustained by any Greek mss., but is represented in several codices of the old Itala version. On the principle of the durior lectio it might claim attention, but surely on no other ground. C.]

321 συγγνωμήν.

[9.] Is it then that thou art become desolate and hast lost a protector? Nay, never mention this. For thou hast not surely lost thy God. And so, as long as thou hast Him, He will be better to thee than husband and father and child and kinsman: since even when they were alive, He it was who did all things.

These things therefore think upon, and say with David, “The Lord is my light and my Saviour³²²

322 σωτὴρ LXX.

Or hast thou lost a child? Thou hast not lost it; say not so. This thing is sleep, not death; removal, not destruction; a journeying from the worse unto the better³²³

323 The same idea is thus expressed by Tertullian. “Why mourn, if thy faith be that he hath not perished? Why bear impatiently his being withdrawn for a while, of whom thou believest that he will return? It is but a journey, which thou accountest death. It is not meet to mourn for him who is gone before, but simply to miss him and long for him.” De Patient. c. 9.

This also do thou, and consider with thyself that man hath not taken him, but God who made him, who more than thyself cares for him and knows what is good for him: who is no enemy nor lier-in-wait. See how many, living, have made life intolerable to their parents. “But seest thou not the right-hearted ones?” say you. I see these too, but even these are not so safe as thy child is. For though they are now approved, yet it is uncertain what their end will be; but for him thou hast no longer any fear, nor dost thou tremble lest anything should happen to him or he experience any change.

These things also do thou consider respecting a good wife and guardian of thine house, and for all things give thanks unto God. And even if thou shalt lose a wife, give thanks. Perhaps God’s will is to lead thee to continence, He calls thee to a nobler field of conflict, He was pleased to set thee free from this bond. If we thus command ourselves, we shall both gain the joy of this life and obtain the crowns which are to come, &c. &c.

E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH