Resurrection Passage

The passage "On the Resurrection" was found in the Paris Codex of the so-called parallel passages of St. John of Damascus, where he is given with the name of the martyr Justin the Philosopher. Soon after the publication of this passage, the question of whether it can be recognized as an authentic work of St. Justin, gave rise to discordant opinions that remain to this day. The ten chapters of this work contain a defense of the Christian dogma of the future resurrection of the human body against the objections of pagans and Gnostics. The following passage opens with a peculiar theory of knowledge. We must believe the truth, that is, Divine Revelation without any evidence, just as we believe our feelings. Since Christ showed in Himself the Resurrection of the dead, this truth does not need proof and should be an object of faith; It is only in view of the misconceptions among Christians that the author comes forward to defend this truth and intends to examine all the objections against it. *The title of the work in Greek is Περ ἀναστάσεως. *The title of the work in Latin is De resurrectione. Contents About the passage “On the Resurrection” Archpriest Peter Preobrazhensky Passage about the Resurrection About the passage “On the Resurrection” The passage “On the Resurrection” (περί άναοτάσεως) was found in the Parisian codex of the so-called parallel passages of St. John of Damascus, where he is given with the name of St. Justin the philosopher and martyr. The ten chapters of which it consists contain a defense of the Christian dogma of the future resurrection of the human body against the objections of the pagans and Gnostics. Soon after the publication of this passage 1, the question of whether it can be recognized as a genuine work of Justin gave rise to dissenting opinions that remain to this day. While some scientists - Tillemon, Maran, Mohler and especially Gerbig 2 rejected its authenticity, others - Grabe, Semisch and Otto tried to defend the opinion about its origin from St. Justina. In addition to John of Damascus, other quite respectable external evidence speaks in favor of the latter opinion. True, Eusebius and Jerome in the list of writings of St. Justin is not given his writings on the resurrection. Otto suggests that this treatise by Justin is an excerpt from his work against heresies; but the title of the passage in Damascene contradicts this, and in addition, its 1st chapter has the character of an introduction to a separate work. 3 For this reason St. Methodius of Patara († 311), in his now lost work on the resurrection, referred to a saying of Justin on the same subject, which is not in the known works of this apologist; 4 a Procopius of Gaza († 527) in the interpretation of the 3rd chapter. Genesis directly attributes to Justin a treatise on the resurrection. 5 Although the passages they cite are not in the passage that has survived to us, they could have been in those sections of the work that were omitted by Damascene. In addition, in the views of the author of the passage, not only is there nothing that would contradict the authentic writings of St. Justin, but there are even thoughts that expose a close affinity with them: such, for example, that the miracles of Christ were intended to confirm the resurrection of the dead (chap. 4; fn. Rasg. ch. 69), also about the origin of the human body from a small drop of seed, as proof of the possibility of resurrection by the power of God's omnipotence (ch. 5; fn. I Apol. ch. 19). 1. The word of truth is free and autocratic; it does not want to be tested through arguments, does not allow its listeners to be examined through evidence. For its nobility and reliability require that one who sent it be believed. The word of truth is sent from God; therefore his freedom is not arrogant. Proclaimed freely, it rightly wants no proof of the proposed teaching to be required, because there is no other proof besides the truth itself, which is God. For every proof is stronger and more reliable than what is being proven, since what was not at first recognized before the proof was presented, when it is presented, it receives certainty and is confirmed in its meaning. There is nothing stronger and more reliable than truth, so that one who demands proof of it is like one who, regarding what appears to the senses, would demand proof of what is obvious. The criterion of what is understood by reason is sensation, and for sensation there is no other criterion than sensation itself. Just as now we elevate what we comprehend with reason to sensation and believe it, whether we affirm it justly or falsely, and do not carry out further verification, trusting the sensation itself, so we subordinate the teachings concerning the world and man to the truth and judge in accordance with it whether they are bad or not, but we do not trust the basic provisions of the truth with anything else, believing the truth itself. Truth is God, the Father of all, who is perfect mind. The Son, His Word, came to us in the flesh, showing Himself and the Father, and gave us in Himself the resurrection from the dead and after that eternal life. This is Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord; in Him lies the proof and reliability of Himself and everything. Therefore, those who follow Him, knowing Him, believe in Him as proof, and rest in Him. But since the enemy 7 does not cease to attack many and plots in various ways - against believers, in order to lead them away from the faith, and against unbelievers, so that they do not believe, then, it seems to me, it is necessary for us, armed with the invulnerable words of faith, to fight with him for the sake of the weak. 2. Preachers of false doctrine say that there is no resurrection of the flesh; for it is impossible for it, having undergone corruption and destruction, to be restored in the same form. Further, it is not only impossible, they say, but also useless to preserve the flesh, and they condemn it, exposing its shortcomings, and in it alone they believe the cause of sins, so that, according to them, if the flesh is resurrected, then at the same time its shortcomings will be restored. And they weave such sophisms: if the flesh rises, then it will rise entirely and with all its members, or imperfectly. If it does not rise entirely, this shows the powerlessness of God, since He could preserve some parts, but not others. If the flesh has all parts and members, is it not absurd to attribute this to it after the resurrection from the dead, when the Savior said: “They neither marry nor are given in marriage, but will be like angels in heaven?” Angels, they say, have no flesh, do not eat, do not copulate; therefore there will be no resurrection of the flesh. By saying this and the like, they are trying to break up the believers. And there are those who say that Jesus appeared only spiritually, and not in the flesh, and presented the form only of the flesh, thus trying to deprive the flesh of the promise. 8 So, first let us resolve what seems incomprehensible to them; Then we will provide evidence that the flesh will be preserved. 3. They say: if the body is resurrected completely and has all the members, then there must also be discharges of the members: the conception of the uterus, the outpouring of seed in the male member, and so on. - Let this alone be the basis of the reasoning: as soon as its falsity is proven, then their entire conclusion will fall. Of course it is true that the active members perform the functions that we see here; but it cannot be asserted with certainty that they performed them necessarily according to their original structure. To clarify what has been said, consider the following. The release of the uterus is conception, and the release of semen from the male member. Although they will be able to perform these actions, it is therefore not necessary that they act according to their original structure, for we see that many women do not conceive as barren, although they have uteruses: thus the existence of the uterus is not necessarily connected with conception. And those who are not barren, but those who are disposed to virginity, are abstained from intercourse, some from the very beginning, and others from a certain time. In the same way, we see that men observe virginity, some from early youth, others from a certain time, so that they break off a marriage that is illegal because of the lust associated with it. 9 We also find animals that do not give birth, although they have wombs, such as mules, among which the males do not give birth. Thus, abstinence from intercourse both between people and between dumb people occurs to us even before the next century. And our Lord Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin for no other reason than to abolish birth from unlawful lust and to show the ruler of evil that even without human intercourse, the formation of man is possible for God. And by birth He is in other respects, i.e. in food, drink and clothing, he led a carnal life, but did not do only what relates to intercourse; He accepted some lusts of the flesh—necessary ones—and He did not allow others, which were not necessary. For the flesh, when deprived of food, drink and clothing, is damaged, but being deprived of intercourse not prescribed by law 10 does not tolerate any evil. In addition, (the Lord) predicted that marital intercourse would be destroyed in the next century, saying: “The sons of this age will marry and be given in marriage, but the sons of the next age will neither marry nor commit sexual intercourse, but will be like angels in heaven.” 11 Therefore, let not those who are strangers to the faith be surprised if the flesh, even now leaving these works, will be free from them in the age to come. 4. Yes, they say. This means that if the flesh rises, it will rise the same as it dies: if someone dies with one eye, then he will rise with one eye, a lame person will rise lame, deprived of any other member, and will be resurrected the same. - Oh, hearts truly blinded by the eyes! Have they not seen that on earth the blind saw, the lame walked according to His word? The Savior did all this, firstly, in order to fulfill what was said about Him through the prophets: “The blind see, the deaf hear,” and so on. 12 Secondly, to ensure that in the resurrection the flesh will rise whole. For if on earth He healed the infirmities of the flesh and restored the integrity of the body, much more will He do this in the resurrection, so that the flesh will rise full and whole. In this way, what seemed inexplicable to them is resolved. 5. Further, of those who reject the resurrection of the flesh, some recognize it as impossible, others say that the resurrection of the flesh - insignificant and despicable - is unworthy of God, while others claim that it has no promise at all. First of all, against those who consider the resurrection of the flesh impossible for God, it seems to me that we must point out that they themselves do not see that in words they call themselves believers, but in reality they turn out to be unbelievers and even worse than unbelievers. For all nations that worship idols are convinced that for them everything is possible, just as their poet Homer says: adding the word easily to show the greatness of the power of the gods, and they are more unbelievers (than the pagans). If the pagans attributed omnipotence to idols, their gods, who “have ears and do not hear, have eyes and do not see,” 14 which are demons, according to the Scriptures: “the gods of the nations are demons” 15 ; Moreover, we, who maintain excellent and true faith, must believe in our God when we have evidence - and, firstly, in the origin of the primordial, since it was created by God from the earth, and this serves as sufficient proof of the power of God. Secondly, those who reflect should pay attention to the successive origins of people from each other and be even more surprised at this, that such a living being is formed from the slightest drop of moisture. Of course, if this (the resurrection of the flesh) were promised and did not appear in practice, then it would not deserve faith any more than anything else, but its reliability is evidenced by its fulfillment. The Savior presented us with examples of the resurrection; however, we’ll say a little about them later. Now we show the possibility of the resurrection, and we ask the children of the Church to apologize for the fact that we use arguments that are apparently external and borrowed from the world: (we do this), firstly, because nothing, and the world itself, is not outside of God, since it is His creation, and secondly, because we turn our speech to unbelievers. If we were speaking to believers, then it would be enough to say that we believe, but in the present case it is necessary to conduct the matter through evidence. The above arguments sufficiently prove the possibility of the resurrection of the flesh, but since unbelievers are too infected with unbelief, let us present a more compelling proof, not from faith, to which they are alien, but from unbelief - their mother - that is, from the foundations presented by the world. For if in this way we prove to them that the resurrection of the flesh is possible, then they will be worthy of great dishonor, when they cannot follow either the instructions of faith or the arguments from the world. 6. Explorers of the world, called sages, say that the universe is made up of: some, like Plato, matter and God, others, like Epicurus, atoms and emptiness, others, for example. Stoics - four elements: fire, water, air and earth. It is enough to mention the most dominant opinions. Plato says that everything was created by God from matter and according to His providence, Epicurus and his followers claim that everything came from the atom and emptiness by some random impulse of the natural movement of bodies, and the Stoics produce everything from the four elements through the activity of God. Despite their disagreement, they have some common provisions that are recognized by all of them: the first is that existing things can neither come from nothing nor resolve into nothing and disappear, and the other is that there are indestructible elements from which every thing comes. If this is so, then according to the principles of all of them it will be possible to restore the flesh. For if, according to Plato, matter and God exist, both are indestructible: God takes the place of the artist or educator, and matter serves as clay, wax, or something like that. A work formed from matter - a statue or figure - is subject to destruction, but the matter itself - clay, wax or any other type of substance - is indestructible. Thus the artist forms from clay or wax and vividly expresses the image of an animal; If his work is then destroyed, then it is not impossible for him to mix and re-install the same substance and make the same image. So, according to Plato, God, who is himself indestructible, and, moreover, having indestructible matter, can, after the destruction of the work formed from it, again resume the same composition and make the same thing as it was before. According to the Stoics, the body comes from a mixture of four elements and after its decomposition into these elements they remain indestructible; Therefore, it is possible for the four elements, having received the same mixture and combination by God's order, to again form the same body that they composed before, just as if someone makes a mixture of gold, silver and copper, then wants to destroy it, so that each metal is separate, then he can, if he wants, again make out of them the same composition that he first made. Also, according to Epicurus, atoms and emptiness are indestructible, and from atoms united in a certain order and position, other combinations are formed and the body itself, which, having collapsed over time, decomposes into the same atoms from which it came. Since atoms are indestructible, it is not impossible for them to come together and unite in the same order and position and then form the same body that was previously made from them, just as if a mosaic artist makes an image of an animal out of stones and when they then fall apart over time or at the will of the artist, then having the same pieces, he can collect and arrange them in a similar order to make the same image of an animal. Is it possible that God cannot bring together the members of the flesh that have separated from each other again and make a body identical to what He previously created? Thus, I have sufficiently proven the possibility of the resurrection of the flesh based on the concepts of the pagans. If, according to the concepts of unbelievers, the resurrection of the flesh does not turn out to be impossible, then is it not even more possible according to the concepts of believers? 16 7. Next, we should speak against those who humiliate the flesh and say that it is unworthy of resurrection and heavenly residence, because, firstly, its essence is earth, and secondly, it is full of all sin, so that it forces the soul to sin along with it. Such people do not seem to know the whole work of God, they do not know either the original origin and creation of man, or the purpose for which everything that exists in measure was created. Doesn’t the Word say: “Let us make man in our image and likeness?” What kind of person is He talking about? Obviously, about the flesh. For the Word says: “And God took the dust out of the earth and created man” 17. It is clear that man, created in the image of God, was carnal. Then, isn’t it absurd to say about the flesh, created by God in His image, that it is inglorious and worthless? 18 That flesh is a thing venerable before God is evident, firstly, from the fact that it was created by Him, since the image is pleasing to the sculptor and painter; This can also be understood from the rest of the creation of the world, for that for which the rest was created is most pleasant to the Creator. So, they say; but the flesh is sinful, so that it forces the soul to sin along with it. In vain do they blame the flesh and lay the sins of both on it alone. For how can the flesh sin on its own if there is no initiative and challenge to it from the soul? Just as in a pair of oxen, if they leave the yoke and are separated from each other, neither of them can plow separately, so both the soul and the body, after the destruction of the union, cannot do anything on their own. If the flesh alone is sinful, then for its sake alone the Savior came, as He says: “I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners” 19 . So, if the flesh, as proven, is honorable before God and superior to all creatures, then in justice it should be preserved by Him. 8. Now we must refute those who say that although the flesh is the predominant work of God and is more pleasing to Him than all creatures, it does not have the promise of resurrection. But isn’t it absurd that what was created with such care and more than anything else, the venerable Creator would despise to the point that it would turn into nothing? The sculptor and the painter, if they want the images they make to remain for their own glory, renew them when they are spoiled, and is God really so careless about His creation that it comes into insignificance - not caring about restoring its existence? We call someone who, having built a house, then destroyed it, or, when it was destroyed, neglected it, having been able to restore it, labored in vain: wouldn’t we blame God for what He did in vain? But the Imperishable, the Mind of the universe is not like that. Let the unbelievers be silent if they themselves are unable to believe. God called the flesh to resurrection and promises it eternal life. For in preaching the salvation of man, He promises to save the flesh. What is a person if not a rational animal, consisting of soul and body? Is the soul itself a person? No - she is the soul of a person. Can a body really be called a person? No, it is called the human body. If neither one nor the other separately constitutes a man, but only a being consisting of the combination of one and the other is called man, 20 and God called man to life and resurrection: then He called not a part, but a whole, that is, soul and body. For isn’t it absurd, since both are linked together in their existence, to preserve one and not the other? Since, as has been proven, it is not impossible for the flesh to be restored to existence, what difference is there for the soul to be preserved, but the flesh not? Or do they consider God envious? But He is Good and desires for everyone to be saved, and not only the soul and with it the flesh heard Him and His preaching and believed in Christ Jesus, but both of them were washed, both did the truth. 21 Doesn’t this represent God as ungrateful or unjust if He wants to keep one and not the other, while they both believe in Him? - Yes, they say. But the soul is incorruptible, for it is a part and breath of God, and therefore He wants to preserve His own and what is related to Him, but the flesh is perishable and not from Him, like the soul. So, what gratitude is there to Him? And what is the demonstration of His power and goodness if He preserves what is by nature preserved and is a part of Him? Such a being in itself can remain whole, so that He who preserves the soul does not do great things; for indestructibility belongs to her, since she is a part of Him, being His breath. But gratitude should not be given to the one who preserves his own, for this means preserving himself. He who preserves a part of himself preserves himself, so as not to remain deprived of that part. Such a thing is not a good thing. For no one will call a person good who does something good to his children and grandchildren. Even the wildest animals do this; even if they had to die for their children, they willingly submit to this. But if someone does the same for slaves, then in justice he can be called good. Therefore, the Savior taught us to “love our enemies,” otherwise “what gratitude do we have?” - He said. 22 Thus He showed us that it is a good deed to love not only those born of us, but also strangers. And what He commanded us, He Himself fulfilled much earlier. 9 . If He didn’t need the flesh for anything, then why did He heal it? And most importantly, He raised the dead. 24 For what? Is it not to show what the resurrection will be like? How did He raise the dead? Are they souls or bodies? Obviously, both are together. If the resurrection were only spiritual, 25 then He Himself, having risen, would have to separately show the body lying down, the soul existing separately. But He did not do this, but resurrected the body, confirming in Himself the promise of life. Why did He rise in the suffering flesh, if not to show the resurrection of the flesh? And wanting to confirm this, when His disciples did not believe, that He had truly risen in body, when they saw and doubted, He said to them: “Do you not yet believe? See, it’s me.” 26 And He allowed them to touch Him and showed them the marks of the nails in their hands. And when they fully realized that it was He who was present in the body before them, they invited Him to eat with them, so that through this they could undoubtedly be convinced that He had truly risen bodily. Then He ate honey and fish. Thus, having shown them that the resurrection of the flesh truly is, He, wanting to show - since, according to His words 27, “our life is in heaven” - that it is not impossible for the flesh to ascend to heaven, He ascended into heaven before their eyes, as He was in the flesh. So, if anyone, after all that has been said, demands further evidence of the resurrection, he is no different from the Sadducees, because the resurrection of the flesh is “the power of God,” 28 and above all reasoning, being supported by faith, and visible in works. 10. Resurrection refers to the flesh of the dead, but the spirit does not die. The soul is in the body, but the soulless does not live; the body, with the removal of the soul, does not exist. For the body is the dwelling place of the soul, and the soul is the dwelling place of the spirit. These three will be preserved in those who have sincere hope and firm faith in God. So, considering the principles contained in the world, we do not find it impossible to restore the flesh; on the other hand, the Savior throughout the Gospel shows the preservation of our flesh; after this, why should we accept a teaching that is contrary to faith and disastrous and recklessly turn back when we hear that the soul is immortal, but the body is perishable and incapable of coming to life again? We heard this before the knowledge of truth from Pythagoras and Plato. If the Savior had said the same thing and proclaimed the salvation of only the soul, what new thing would He have brought to us beyond Pythagoras and Plato, with all their choir? And now He has come to preach a new and unprecedented hope. A truly new and unheard-of thing is that God does not promise to keep the incorruptible incorruptible, but to grant incorruptibility to the corruptible. But the leader of evil, not being able to otherwise distort this teaching, sent out his apostles introducing evil and destructive teachings, choosing them from those who crucified our Savior: they bore the name of the Savior, but did the works of the one who sent them, and through them His very name was blasphemed. If the flesh does not rebel, then why do we curb it and do not allow it to indulge in lusts? Why don’t we imitate, as they say, doctors who, having a desperate sick person who cannot recover, allow him to fulfill all his wishes? They know he will die. This is also done by those who hate the flesh and deprive it, as much as depends on them, of its inheritance: therefore they dishonor it, as if it had to be a corpse. If your physician Christ, distracting you from your lusts, prescribes to our flesh the chaste and abstinent way of life characteristic of it, then it is clear that He preserves it from sins, as having the hope of salvation, just as doctors do not allow sick people who have the hope of salvation to satisfy their whims. It was published by Gallia in his Vita et documenta Justini phil. Et Martyris. 1622". Gerbig – Comment. Crit. de scriptis quae sub nomine Justini circumferuntur. 1833. See below for the translation of Ch. I and note. Photius Biblioth. cod. 234. Grabe – Specileg. Patrr. t. II. In John of Damascus (Sacr. Parall), this passage is given with the following spelling: from the work of St. Justin the philosopher and martyr “On the Resurrection” (Εχ του π eri άναςασεως.) That is, resurrection to new life. Others (Maran and Grabe) interpret these words as follows: they break off an illegal marriage committed out of lust. Athenagoras suggests a shortening of this chapter (Suppl, p. Chr. p. 35). The same thoughts, besides Athenagoras, are expressed by Tertullian (de resiirr. carn. pp. 5–7). The same thought is almost literally repeated in St. Irenea (adv liaer. V. p. b. § 1). See also Athenagos. (de resurr. p. 15) and Tertullus. (de resurr. carn. p. 34; adv. Mavc. IV. p. 37). See Irin. adv. haer. II. With. 29. § 1. Tertullus. de resurr. carn. With. 8. So John of Damascus cites an excerpt from this work. The omitted passage is supposed to contain a proof of the truth of the incarnation of Christ. Next follow the positive foundations of the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh, which consist 1) in the fact that Christ resurrected others and Himself rose again in the flesh that suffered (chapter 9); 2) in the very concept of resurrection and 3) in the purpose of the coming of Christ (chapter 10). The same is revealed in Irenaeus (adv. haer. V. p. 12–13) and Tertullian (de resurr. carn. p. 38). See times. with Trif. Ch. 69. The author here has in mind the Gnostics, who, admitting the immortality of the soul and not being able to reject the clear teaching of Scripture about the resurrection, answered the question: what will be resurrected? they resorted to an allegorical explanation of the word “resurrection” and meant by it the departure of the soul from the body and the transition from this life to a higher knowledge. See Tertul. de resurr. With. 19. See In. XIV, 2, 3. Phil. III, 20. See Matt. XXII, 29, where Christ tells the Sadducees that they do not know the scriptures or the power of God.