About the resurrection of the flesh

Tertullian’s work “On the Resurrection of the Flesh” (63 chapters, 209-210) is devoted to the issue that was dealt with by the apologists (Martyr Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, St. Theophilus) and the Holy Martyr. Irenaeus of Lyon. The work is directed against the Gnostics, who denied both the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of the flesh in general. The treatise consists of three parts. The truth of the resurrection is proven by Tertullian: 1) through philosophical reasoning (3-17): the body is the image of God, the organ of the soul, participates with it in grace and salvation, and with it must receive reward and punishment; 2) based on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (18-51): the Apostle Paul speaks of the bodily resurrection, which refers to the time of the second coming of Christ. The vision of Ezekiel, the words of the Apocalypse that even the fish of the sea will return what they have swallowed, and especially the Savior’s answer to the Sadducees speak for the resurrection of the flesh; 3) is interpreted by the quality of the resurrected body (52-68): the body will rise more perfect, from the spiritual - the body will become spiritual. In his work, Tertullian uses the corresponding works of the martyr. Justina, St. Irenaeus, Athenagoras. *The title of the work in Latin is De surrectione carnis. 1. The resurrection of the dead is the hope of Christians. Thanks to him we are believers. The truth makes you believe it, the truth is revealed by God. But the crowd mocks, thinking that nothing remains after death. And, however, she makes sacrifices to the dead and, moreover, with extraordinary helpfulness, adapting to the tastes of the buried, to the time of eating, so that in those in whom she denies any feeling, in the same she assumes desire. And I will ridicule the crowd, especially when, without any pity, they burn those very dead, whom they then feed very daintily, with the same fire, both honoring and insulting. O affection that amuses itself with cruelty! Does she perform sacred acts or does she mock when she burns for those who were burned? Sometimes the sages add their own opinions to the gossip of the crowd. According to the school of Epicurus, there is nothing after death. And Seneca claims that after death everything ceases, even herself. However, it is enough that the no less significant philosophy of Pythagoras and Empedocles and the Platonists, on the contrary, declare that the soul is immortal and, moreover, like us, they assert that it returns to the body 1 . Even if not in the same way, even if not in a human one, so that Euphorbus is recognized as reborn in Pythagoras, and Homer in the peacock 2; but they, at least, declare the bodily restoration of the soul, distorting, but not denying its properties, and although they do not achieve the truth, they nevertheless touch it. So, the world does not deny the resurrection of the dead even when it is mistaken. 2. If indeed among the servants of God there is a certain sect closer to the Epicureans than to the prophets, then we also know what the Sadducees hear from Christ. For Christ had everything to reveal what was previously hidden, to confirm what was wavering, to correct what was imperfect, to fulfill what was predicted, to prove the resurrection of the dead not only through Himself, but also in Himself. Now we oppose the new Sadducees, who partially share the opinion of the former: they half recognize the resurrection, namely the resurrection of only the soul, neglecting both the flesh and the Lord of the flesh. No one denies the salvation of bodily substance, except those heretics who also know another deity. Therefore, they are forced to present Christ differently, so that He does not belong to the Creator. First of all, they were mistaken about His flesh, arguing, according to Marcion and Basilides, that it does not have reality, or, according to the heresy of Valentinus and Apelles, that it is of a completely special nature. From this it follows that they do not allow the salvation of that substance which they deny in Christ, and they think that the most convincing proof of the resurrection would be obtained if the flesh had already been resurrected in Christ. That is why we wrote the essay “On the Flesh of Christ,” in which we affirm its reality against those who prove its illusory nature and its human nature against those who recognize its special property, so that Christ rightfully called Himself man and the Son of man. By proving that He was a carnal and corporeal being, we thereby reject heresy and, asserting that one should not believe in any God other than the Creator, we show that Christ, in Whom God is known, is exactly as His Creator announced. Having been refuted in the opinion that God is not the Creator of the flesh, and Christ is the Redeemer of the flesh, the heretics will also be convicted of denying the resurrection of the flesh. And we affirm that this is exactly how debates with heretics should be conducted, since order always requires that consequences be drawn from the main premises in order to first establish what determines the subject of further investigation. Heretics, aware of their weakness, never reason properly. They know well how difficult it is for them to prove any other deity than the God of the world, known to all naturally through the testimony of His works. Without a doubt, He is above all in the sacraments and in prophecies is revealed most clearly. Therefore, the heretics, citing a supposedly urgent reason for justification - namely, the salvation of man himself, which must be examined first of all - begin with the question of the resurrection, for it is more difficult to believe in the resurrection of the flesh than in the one Godhead. And so, depriving reasoning of the advantages of a logical order and, moreover, burdening it with doubts aimed at humiliating the flesh, they gradually direct the mind to another deity, shaking and distorting our hope. After all, anyone who has been cast down from the heights of the hope that he hoped for in the Creator, or has been shaken in it, easily leans towards the creator of another hope, whom he would not otherwise have believed. The difference in promise also causes the difference in gods. Thus, we see that many become confused and lose faith in the resurrection of the flesh before they lose faith in the unity of the Divine. As for the heretics, we have shown with what weapons we must counteract them. And they have already opposed them in special writings: on the unity of God and His Christ - against Marcion, as well as on the flesh of the Lord - against four heresies 3 in order to prepare the real question as thoroughly as possible; Therefore, now we should talk about the resurrection of the flesh alone, as if it were doubtful even in us, that is, in the creatures of the Creator. After all, many are uneducated, many doubt their faith and even more simpletons who will need to be taught, guided and strengthened - for the unity of the Divine will be protected from this side as well. After all, just as by denying the resurrection of the flesh it is questioned, so by recognizing it it is affirmed. As for the salvation of the soul, I believe there is no need to dwell on it much. For almost none of the heretics denies it, no matter how much they would like to. Unless a certain Lucan (Lucanus) not only does not spare even this substance, but, destroying it after Aristotle, puts something else in its place and believes that something third will be resurrected, neither soul nor body - that means not a person, but probably a bear, - after all, he is a Lucan (Lucanus) 4. And he did well in his essay on the various properties of the soul, 5 the immortality of which we first of all defend, allowing only the disappearance of the flesh and especially affirming its restoration. [In this work] we have collected and arranged in order those questions that were mentioned in other [books] but were put aside for various reasons. And since we are in the habit of slightly touching on some issues, we need to postpone them until what has been previously planned is completed and what has been postponed appears in full. 3. For judging the affairs of God, natural common sense is quite sufficient - but only as evidence of truth, and not as an aid to lies, for there must be correspondence, and not contradiction, to the Divine establishment. After all, some things are known from nature itself, for example: many know about the immortality of the soul, everyone knows about our God. Therefore, I could use both the opinion of Plato, who argued that every soul is immortal, 6 and the natural knowledge of the people, who testify to the God of gods. I could use other general statements that proclaim God to be the Judge: “God sees” and “I entrust to God.” But when they say: “what is dead is dead,” “live while you live,” or “with death everything ends, even death itself,” then I will remember that God declared the heart of the crowd to be ashes and called the very wisdom of this world foolishness, then if the heretic seeks refuge in the prophets of the crowd or in worldly speculations, I will say: “Heretic! Get away from the pagan! Although all of you who imagine God yourself are the same, however, as long as you do this in the name of Christ, while you imagine yourself to be a Christian, you differ from the pagan. Give him back his thoughts, for he too is not edified by yours. Why are you looking for support in a blind guide if you can see it yourself? Why does the naked man clothe you if you have put on Christ? Why do you use someone else's shield if you are armed with an apostle? It is better for a pagan to learn from you to confess the resurrection of the flesh than for you to deny it: for if Christians were to deny it, then it would be enough for them to be guided by their own science, and not by the ignorant crowd. He will no longer be a Christian who denies the resurrection, which is professed by Christians, and denies it with the help of those arguments that a non-Christian uses. Only take away from the heretics the opinions they have in common with the pagans, so that they base their research only on Scripture, and they will not stand. After all, natural common sense is inspired by the very simplicity, unanimity and sincerity of opinions, and it is considered all the more reliable because its definitions are true, open and known to everyone. Divine intelligence, on the contrary, dwells in the core, not on the surface, and often does not coincide with what is visible to everyone. 4. Therefore, heretics immediately begin with what they believe is easy to captivate minds, namely, with their favorite general concepts, on which they build their conjectures. Perhaps you will hear something from a heretic sooner or more than from a pagan? Don’t they constantly and everywhere revile the flesh for its origin, composition, imperfection, final destruction, for the fact that from the very beginning it is unclean, coming from the dirt of the earth, then even more unclean from the impurity of its seed, insignificant, weak, criminal, burdened, heavy, and then, to complete its insignificance, it is cast into the ground, its original origin, under the name of a corpse, and finally doomed lose this name and be left without any name, also subject to death? So, don’t you want, says the wise man, to convince yourself that this flesh, deprived of sight, touch and memory, will someday again be restored from spoiled to whole, from hollow to solid, from empty to complete, generally from nothing to something - when, of course, fire, water, the stomachs of wild animals, the crops of birds, the intestines of fish and even all-consuming time itself will return it? And will it therefore be necessary to expect her the same as she died - so that the lame, and the crooked, and the blind, and the lepers, and the paralytic will return, although one does not want to be restored to their former form? Or will they return undamaged, only to be afraid to endure the same thing again? What then happens to the flesh? Will she need everything again? First of all, food and drink? What about breathing for the lungs, lust for the intestines and stomach, shamelessness for the private parts, work for all members? More boils and wounds, fever and gout? And the desired death? Of course, the desire to return such flesh will again be reduced to the desire to get rid of it. We talk about this very, very decently, in our characteristic modest manner. And how much foul language is allowed to pagans or heretics can be found out at their meetings. 5. Therefore, since even the ignorant are able to be guided by the principles of common sense, and they again confuse doubters and simpletons, and since they constitute the first battering ram that is directed against us, shaking the very property of the flesh, then we must first strengthen the dignity of the flesh, removing blame with praise. Thus the heretics force us to study rhetoric as well as philosophy. Even if this fragile and fragile body, which they are afraid to call evil, were the work of angels, as it seems to Menander and Mark 7, or the creation of a certain fiery creature, also an angel, as Apelles claims, then for the authority of the flesh the patronage of a minor deity would be sufficient. Angels, as you know, stand behind God. But now, whatever the highest God of this or that heretic, I could justly derive the dignity of the flesh from Him, since the desire to produce it would belong to Him. For, of course, He would have prevented its emergence if He did not want it to arise, since He knew about its creation. Therefore, from their point of view, the flesh is the work of God. Every deed belongs to the One who allowed it to exist. It is good, however, that very many and, moreover, quite clear 8 of their teachings yield the entire creation of man to our God. You, who believe in His unity, know what He is like. Perhaps you are already beginning to like the flesh, the Creator of which is so great. “But the world,” you say, “is the work of God,” and, however, “the image of this world,” according to the testimony of the apostle, “passes away” (1 Cor. 7:31) and therefore the restoration of the world is not predicted, although it is the work of God. - “But if the whole is not restored after destruction, then why restore the part?” – Of course, there’s no point if the part is equal to the whole. But we point out the difference. Firstly, indeed “all things were created” by the Word of God and without Him “nothing was created” (cf. John 1:3); further, the flesh was created by the Word of God, so that, according to the institution, nothing existed apart from the Word. After all, God said before: “Let us make man” (Gen. 1:26), and, moreover, by hand, for the sake of his advantage, so that he would not be equal to the world. “And God created,” says Scripture, “man” (Gen. 1:27). The reason for such a great difference between man and creature lies, no doubt, in the nature of things. After all, what was created is lower than the one for whom it was created, if in fact it was created for a person to whom God later gave it. So it is right that the whole creation came into existence as a servant by the command, authority and power of the Word alone. On the contrary, man, as its ruler, is exalted by God Himself and created by Him so that he can rule. Remember that man in the proper sense is called flesh, because it was the first to receive the name man: “And God created man, the dust of the earth” (Gen. 2:7). Already a man, but still dust. “And he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man,” that is, dust, “became a living soul, and God placed the man whom he had created in paradise” (Gen. 2:7–8). So, at first man was only dust, and only then became whole. I could argue that everything that is generally provided for by God for man and promised to him applies not only to the soul, but also to the flesh, if not by virtue of common origin, then, in any case, by right of primacy. 6. So, perhaps, I will continue my reasoning, if only I can give the flesh as much honor as He who created it told it. For she was already so glorious that such an insignificant thing as dust found itself in the hands of God, whatever they were, and was happy enough by their mere touch. But is it surprising if creation arose from the mere touch of God, without any other action? For what a great work was the construction of this matter! So many times she was honored, how many times she felt the hand of God when it touched her, when a part was taken from her, when she was separated, when she was formed. Think: after all, God was busy and concerned only with her - His hand, mind, action, design, wisdom, care and above all His favor, which drew the image, were directed towards her. And no matter what form the dust received, Christ was thought of, Who would one day become man, for the Word had to become dust and flesh, which were then still earth. For first the Father said to the Son: “Let us make man in our image and likeness” (Gen. 1:26). “And God created man”—exactly what He created—“and created him in the image of God” (Gen. 1:27), that is, in the image of Christ. For the Word was also God, and, having appeared in the form of God, “did not consider it robbery to be equal with God” (cf. Phil. 2:6). Therefore, then, already this dust, having clothed itself in the image of Christ, who was about to appear in the flesh, was not only the work of God, but also a pledge. So, why now (with the intention of destroying the origin of the flesh) revile the word “earth” as a designation of an unclean and base element? After all, if other matter had been used to create man, one should remember the height of the Creator, Who, having chosen, declared, and having touched, made it worthy. The hand of Phidias creates Olympian Jupiter from ivory, 9 and they no longer worship the bone of a wild and, moreover, very awkward animal, but the image of the highest world god, and not thanks to the elephant, but thanks to the great Phidias. So wouldn’t the Living God, the true God, cleanse any base matter and free it from every defect? Will the opinion really prevail that man can create God better than God can create man? If even now the dust is a source of temptation, it has already become something else. I already possess flesh, and not earth, although it is said to the flesh: “The earth is, and to the earth you will go” (Gen. 3:19). It is a question of origin, not substance. She has been given an existence that is nobler than its origin and happier because of the change that has taken place in it. After all, gold is earth, for it is from earth; however, it is earth only until the time it becomes gold, a completely different matter, more glorious and more noble, although it comes from a not very pure ancestor. So God was pleased to extract the gold of flesh from the dust, which you consider dirt, and thereby atone for its origin. 7. But perhaps the dignity of the flesh is less high because the hand of God did not touch it itself, as it touched the dust? However, since she touched the dust so that flesh would then be formed from the dust, she, of course, was also in charge of the affairs of the flesh. But I would also like you to know when and how flesh grew from dust. For those “tunics of skin” (cf. Gen. 3:21) that Adam and Eve put on during their expulsion from paradise were not, as some believe, a transformation from dust into flesh, since even earlier Adam recognized in the flesh of his wife an outgrowth of his substance: “This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2:23); and that which was taken from the man to form the wife consisted of flesh, but if Adam had then been still dust, it, I suppose, would have consisted of dust. So the dust turned into flesh and was swallowed up by it. When? When a person became a living soul through the breath of God, through heat that could somehow dry the dust so that it acquired a different quality, becoming, as it were, an earthen vessel, that is, flesh. Likewise, a potter is able, under the influence of fire, to thicken clay into a solid mass and from one form to produce another, better than the previous one, of a special kind and with his own name. For although it is written: “Shall the clay speak to the potter?” (Rom.9:20), that is, does a person ask God, and if the apostle speaks of “clay vessels” (2 Cor.4:7), then man is clay, because he was formerly dust, and flesh is an earthen vessel, because it was formed from clay by the heat of the Divine breath. Then it was covered with leather tunics, that is, covered with leather. After all, where the skin is torn off, flesh is exposed everywhere. Therefore, what now becomes skin when it is torn off was clothing when it was put on. So the apostle, calling circumcision “the stripping of the flesh” (Col. 2:11), declares the skin to be a garment. Since this is the case, you have both dust, glorious through the hand of God, and flesh, even more glorious through the breath of God, which at the same time left the remains of the dust and was adorned with the soul. Are you more skillful than God? And yet you set the Scythian and Indian precious stones, and the shining grains of the Red Sea, not in lead, not in copper, not in iron, and not even in silver, but you set them in the best and, moreover, beautifully minted gold. In the same way, for the most fragrant oils you prepare in advance the vessels corresponding to them, and for iron swords in the same way you choose scabbards worthy of them. So, has God really built some kind of most despicable tomb for the shadow of His soul, for the breath of His Spirit, for the work of His lips, thereby condemning them to an unworthy refuge? But did He not place the soul in the flesh, or, better said, did He not introduce it and mix it with the flesh and, moreover, unite them in such a way that one can doubt whether the body clothes the soul or the soul the body, whether the flesh obeys the soul or the soul obeys the flesh? However, it should be assumed that the soul, as a being more akin to God, leads and dominates. The flesh is glorified by the fact that it contains within itself a soul kindred to God and gives it the opportunity to dominate. For what use of nature, what enjoyment of the world, what pleasure from the elements does the soul have apart from the body? Isn't that right? Through it, she is equipped with all the senses: vision, hearing, taste, smell, touch. Through him, she is gifted with the Divine power to accomplish everything only with words, even what is indicated silently. After all, the word comes from a bodily organ. The arts are realized through the flesh, academic studies, talents - through the flesh, deeds, work, duties - through the flesh, and the whole life of the soul is based on the flesh, so for the soul not to live is nothing more than to be separated from the flesh. Death itself is a work of the flesh, as is life. Moreover, if everything is subject to the soul through the flesh, then it is thereby subject to the flesh. You must live with what allows you to enjoy life. So, although the flesh is considered the servant and slave of the soul, it appears as its accomplice and co-heir. If this is how it is in temporary life, then why not in eternal life? 8. This is what I wanted to present in favor of the flesh, bearing in mind the general foundations of human existence. Now let’s see, based on strictly Christian grounds, what advantages this fragile and unclean substance has with God. It is enough that no soul can attain salvation unless it believes while it dwells in the flesh. So, the flesh is the anchor of salvation. Since salvation unites the soul with God, it is the flesh that makes such a union possible. After all, the flesh is washed so that the soul is cleansed, the flesh is anointed so that the soul is sanctified, the flesh is marked so that the soul is strengthened, the flesh is overshadowed by the laying on of hands so that the soul is illuminated by the Spirit, the flesh is nourished by the body and blood of Christ, so that the soul is nourished by God. This means that what is united in labor cannot be divided in reward. For even the sacrifices pleasing to God - I mean humility of the soul, fasting, late and meager meals and the mournful appearance associated with them - are brought by the flesh to its own disadvantage. Virginity, widowhood, marriage that remains chaste in secret, monogamy are also offered to God to the detriment of the benefits of the flesh. Well, what do you think about the flesh when it struggles, dragged out to be massacred and exposed to public hatred for professing the Christian name, when it languishes in prison, vilely deprived of light, in need of everything, living in dirt, stench and humiliation, not having freedom even during sleep, for it is chained on its bed and the straw pricks it; when she is tormented by all kinds of instruments of torture in the middle of a clear day; when, finally, she is destroyed by mortal torments, burning with the desire to die for Christ, repaying her debt to Him, and often on the same cross, not to mention more terrible executions? Super-blessed and super-glorious is that flesh that can appear before the face of Christ the Lord, repaying this great debt. And her debt to Christ is one: to stop being a debtor altogether - and, having returned it, she will be all the more firmly connected [with Christ], for she will become free. 9 . So, I repeat: if God created flesh with His own hands in His own image, if He animated it with His breath in the likeness of His life, set it above all creation to dwell in it, for the use of it and dominion over it, clothed it with His sacraments and instructions, loves its purity, approves of its mortification, appreciates its suffering - will not this flesh be resurrected, being so close to God? God forbid, God forbid, that the work of His hands, the care of His thoughts, the fur of His breath, the queen of His creation, the heir of His bounty, the servant of His religion, the warrior of His testimony, the sister of His Christ, should be destined for eternal destruction! That God is good, we knew; that He alone is perfect, we learned from His Christ. He, commanding love first for Himself, and then for one’s neighbor (Matthew 22:37–40), will Himself fulfill what He prescribes. He will love the flesh, so close to Him: It is weak - but “power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9), it is weak - but “only the sick need a doctor” (Luke 5:31); she is not noble - but “we show more care to those who are not noble” (1 Cor. 12:23); she perished - but: “I,” says Christ, “have come to save what was lost” (Luke 19:10); she is a sinner - but the Lord says: “I want the salvation of a sinner more than his death” (Ezek. 18:23); she is condemned - but “I,” says the Lord, “will strike and I will heal” (Deut. 32:39). Why do you blame in the flesh what awaits God, what hopes in God? God gives glory to what He helps. I would dare to say: if these troubles had not happened to the flesh, then the goodness, mercy, compassion, all the beneficial power of God would not have been used. 10. You take only those passages of Scripture that condemn the flesh; take also those who glorify her. Whenever she humiliates herself, you pay attention to it. Stop your gaze even when she rises. “All flesh is grass” (Isaiah 40:6). But Isaiah said not only this, but also: “All flesh will see the salvation of God” (Is. 40:5). Notice that God says in the Book of Genesis: “My Spirit will not remain in these people, because they are flesh” (Gen. 6:3). But let them hear from the mouth of Joel: “And I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh” (Gen. 2:28). And you should know the apostle not only by those texts in which he often condemns the flesh. For although he says that “nothing good dwells in his flesh” (cf. Rom. 7:18), although he claims that “those who are in the flesh cannot be pleasing to God” (Rom. 8:8), because “the flesh lusts against the spirit” (Gal. 5:17), and if in other places he also says something similar, he condemns not the substance of the flesh, but its actions. We will show in other places that the flesh should be reproached only to reproach the soul, which subjugates the flesh to serve itself. However, in these same Epistles, Paul says that he “bears the marks (stigmata) of Christ on his body” (cf. Gal. 6:17), that he forbids desecrating our body, for it is “the church of God” (cf. 1 Cor. 3:16-17), that he considers our bodies “members of Christ” (6:15) and exhorts us to wear and “glorify God in our body” (20). So, if the humiliations of the body hinder its resurrection, do not its virtues contribute much more? For it is more fitting for God to bring to salvation that which He once condemned, than to consign to destruction that which He once praised. 11. Until now we have glorified the flesh against its enemies, who, nevertheless, are its best friends. After all, no one lives as carnally as those who deny the resurrection of the flesh: whoever denies punishment despises the strict demands of the teaching. The Paraclete speaks beautifully about them through the prophetess Prisca: “They are carnal and hate the flesh.” But if the dignity of the flesh is such that it can promise it the reward of salvation, then should we not think about the power, strength and authority of God Himself? Is He able to restore and recreate the tent of flesh that has been scattered, devoured, and destroyed in various ways? But didn’t He give us examples of His power in the world of nature, revealed to all, so that no one would think that he knows God, in Whom we must believe and believe precisely in His Omnipotence? Of course, you can find among philosophers those who claim that this world is not born and not created 10. But almost all heretics hold a much better opinion, agreeing that the world was born and created, and its creation is attributed to our God. Therefore, firmly believe that God created all this out of nothing (ex nihilo), and then you came to know God, believing that such is the Omnipotence of God. After all, some, who are not able to immediately believe in this, follow the philosophers, believing that God formed the universe from ready-made matter. But even if it really were so, then it would be necessary to assert that during this transformation of matter He created completely different substances and completely different forms than those that were previously in matter. Therefore, I would no less defend the opinion that He created the world out of nothing, if He created something that did not exist before. For what difference does it make between coming from nothing or from something, if something comes into being that did not exist at all, and if “to be nothing” (nihil fuisse) means “to not be at all”? Conversely, “to be” means “to be something” (non nihil). But even if there is a difference, all the same, both turn out to be in my favor. In fact, if God created everything from nothing, He can create flesh, which has turned into nothing, again from nothing. If He produced everything from another matter, He can also bring the flesh (no matter how lost it may be) to life from another matter. In any case, the One who created is also able to recreate, for it is much more difficult to create than to recreate, it is more difficult to begin than to continue. Likewise, you should consider the resurrection of the flesh an easier task than its creation. 12. Now turn your gaze to examples of Divine power. Day dies into night and everything is buried in darkness. The beauty of the world fades and everything that exists is plunged into the darkness of death. Everything becomes dark, silent, numb; There is a calm everywhere and everything mourns for the lost world. And yet the light comes to life again throughout the world exactly the same, whole and unharmed, with its splendor, with its wealth, with the sun, having killed its death - the night, opening its tomb - the darkness, becoming its own heir - until the night in turn comes to life with all that belongs to it. After all, the rays of the stars, which were extinguished by the morning dawn, are ignited again; and the constellations, which are temporarily taken away from the gaze, return again; and the mirror surface of the moon, which has been depleted over the course of a month, regains its beauty. Winter and summer, spring and autumn return with their powers, properties and fruits. Of course, the earth obeys the sky: it dresses the trees after the leaves fall, re-colors the flowers, grows herbs, produces those seeds that are accepted by the earth, and not before they are accepted. Amazing thing! From a destroyer, the earth becomes a guardian; it steals to return, destroys to preserve, harms to restore, depletes to multiply. And indeed, she returns to the most fertile and abundant what she destroyed, turns loss into profit, what was taken away into surplus, loss into profit. In short, everything created is restored. Everything you have encountered has already happened, everything you have lost will return. Everything repeats itself, everything returns to its state, because it disappeared before; everything begins, because it stopped before. Everything ends precisely in order to be again, everything perishes for the sake of its preservation. So, this whole order of rotation testifies to the resurrection of the dead. God sealed it in His works before in His Scripture, preached it by power before by the Word. First, God sent you nature as a teacher, intending to send you a prophecy, so that you, a student of nature, would more easily believe the prophecy, so that you would immediately accept what you heard, for you have already seen it everywhere, and so that you would not doubt that God, Who, as you know, is the Restorer of everything, will also resurrect the flesh. And if indeed everything is resurrected for man and for his benefit, and, resurrecting for man, is resurrected, of course, for the flesh, then can it be that the flesh, for whose sake and for whose benefit nothing perishes, itself perishes entirely? 13. If the universe does not sufficiently show the image of the resurrection, if creation does not confirm this in any way (for some of its parts undergo not so much death as stopping, and not rebirth, but transformation), then here before you is the most complete and most reliable image of this hope, an animated being, subject to both life and death. I mean a bird that lives in the East, remarkable for its rarity and amazing ability to live: dying of its own free will, it is renewed; dying and returning to the day of its birth, the phoenix appears where no one was already there, again the one who no longer existed, different and the same. What could be clearer and more convincing for our subject? And what else does this proof serve? Even in His Scripture, God says: “You will flourish like a phoenix” (Ps. 91:13) 11, that is, after death and burial, so that you may believe that even fire can take away the substance of the body. The Lord said that we are “better than many sparrows” (Matthew 10:31). If we are no better than many phoenixes, then it doesn’t matter. But should people die forever if the Arabian birds are calm about their resurrection? 14. These are the features of Divine power, no less revealed by God in the images of nature than expressed in words. However, perhaps we will turn to His words and instructions themselves, for for the most part this is how we bring proper order to the subject we are examining. After all, we began with the dignity of the flesh: is it such that after destruction it deserves salvation? Then they discussed the power of God: is it such that it is able to save what has been destroyed. If we have proved both, I would like you to examine whether there is such a serious reason that would require the resurrection of the flesh as something necessary, or at least completely consistent with reason? For it should be noted that although the body is capable of restoration, and although God is able to restore it, there must first be a reason for restoration. So, understand the reason for this, you who learn from God, as perfect in goodness as he is just, perfect in Himself, and just towards us. If man had not sinned, he would only know the good God from His natural properties. But now he also feels His justice due to the inevitability of the cause, but along with His justice he also feels His goodness. After all, by encouraging good and punishing evil, He shows justice, and with both judgments He promotes good, protecting one and punishing the other. Together with Marcion you will better understand whether all this belongs to God. Meanwhile, our God is like this: He is a Judge in justice, because the Lord is in justice the Lord, because the Creator is in justice the Creator, because God. From here it follows that that unknown God of heretics is not a judge in justice, for he is not the Lord, in justice he is not the Lord, for he is not the Creator, and I don’t know whether he is God who is not the Creator, since he is not God, and not the Lord, since he is not the Creator. So, if it is most appropriate for God, the Lord and Creator to judge a person, asking whether he tried to know his Lord and Creator and honor Him or not, then this judgment requires resurrection. In this, that is, in the execution of judgment appropriate to God, lies the main reason, even the necessity of the resurrection. Regarding its knowledge, you need to investigate whether the Divine judgment will apply to both substances of man: the soul and the flesh. For whatever is subject to judgment is also capable of resurrection. We first affirm that we believe in the completeness and perfection of God's judgment, for it will be last and therefore eternal; further, he will be righteous, for there will be no defect in him, and therefore worthy of God, that he will be complete and perfect, in accordance with His long-suffering. However, the judgment will be complete and perfect only if the whole person appears before it. And if a whole person consists of a combination of two substances, then he must present them before the court: after all, he must be judged as a whole and he would not live if he were not whole. So, as he lived, this is how he must appear for judgment, because his whole life is subject to judgment: life is the reason for judgment, and it is necessary to judge as many substances as there were during life. 15. Let our opponents first break the connection between the flesh and the soul in the affairs of life, so that later they can boldly break it when rewarding life. Let them deny complicity in actions, so that later they can with good reason deny the common participation in retribution. The flesh should not be condemned if it has nothing to do with its cause. Let one soul be resurrected if it alone has passed away. But in solitude she leaves as little as she goes through what she left - I mean earthly life. The soul is so connected with life that we do not separate even thoughts from communication with the flesh - even if they are lonely, even if they have not found fulfillment through the flesh; everything that the soul does in the heart, it does in the flesh, with the flesh and through the flesh. Therefore, the Lord, condemning our thoughts, mentions precisely this part of the flesh, the stronghold of the soul: “Why do you think evil in your hearts” (Matthew 9:4) and: “Whoever looks with lust has already committed adultery in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). So, thought, even without action and without implementation, is an act of the flesh. But if the main sense organ, which is called ήγεμονικόν 12, is located in the brain, or in the middle between the eyebrows, or wherever philosophers please, the flesh will be the organ of thought (cogitatorium) of the soul. While the soul remains in the flesh, it can never do without it. But the flesh does nothing without the soul, without which it does not exist. Consider also whether it is not through the flesh that thoughts are realized that are cognized from the outside with its help. Just one wave of the soul is enough - and the face makes it known: the face is the mirror of all intentions. Heretics can deny complicity in deeds, but they cannot deny complicity in thoughts. At the same time, they list the crimes of the flesh: this means that it will receive punishment for its sins. We, on the contrary, point out to them the virtues of the flesh: therefore it will receive a reward for its virtue. And if it is the soul that acts and motivates everything, then the flesh is characterized by obedience. One should not think that God is either an unjust or careless Judge: unrighteous if He deprives a participant in good deeds of reward, careless if He exempts a participant in evil deeds from punishment. Meanwhile, human justice is then considered perfect when it discovers the perpetrators in each case and treats them without connivance or ill will, so that they share both punishment and reward with the main culprits. 16. If we attribute power to the soul and obedience to the flesh, we should take care that our opponents do not refute this judgment with other arguments, for they want to falsely assign the flesh to the service of the soul, not as a servant, so that they do not recognize it as the ally of the soul. They will, of course, say that servants and allies have the right to choose regarding their duties and in both cases are free to decide for themselves, for they are people. Therefore, they share the rewards with those to whom they have volunteered their services. The flesh, which in itself does not think or feel anything, is incapable of wanting or not wanting, turns out to be more of a vessel of the soul, its instrument, and not a servant. Therefore, only the soul should be judged - for how it used the vessel of the flesh. The vessel itself, of course, is not subject to judgment, just as a cup in which someone has prepared poison is not punished, and a sword with which someone has committed robbery is not given over to wild animals. So, the flesh is innocent to the extent that evil deeds cannot be charged with a crime, and then nothing prevents it from achieving salvation by virtue of innocence. After all, although neither good nor evil deeds should be imputed to her, it is more fitting for Divine mercy to free the innocent. This is what benefactors should do. And it is common for the Perfect Benefactor to give what he is not obliged to give. However, I ask: the cup, I do not say - poisoned, into which death is plunged, but infected with the breath of the triba, the priest of Cybele, the gladiator or the executioner 13 - is it, in your opinion, worthy of less condemnation than their lips? After all, we usually break a cup that we have soiled or that is not to our taste and become even more angry with the servant. And who wouldn’t remove a sword, criminally stained with blood, from his home, especially from his bedroom, not to mention from his bedside, foreseeing that he would see nothing in his sleep except the hatred of souls tormenting and disturbing the one who shares the bed with their blood? On the contrary, a vessel known only to be good, proven by faithful service, is decorated with the wreaths of the one who drinks from it, and is filled with flowers as a sign of honor. A sword stained with blood in war, which is better than the sword of a murderer, will be rewarded for its services by being considered a sacred object. So, it is possible to pronounce judgments against vessels and tools, which thereby participate in the merits of their owners and users. I brought all this to clarify their arguments, although the difference in objects violates the analogy. After all, every vessel and instrument is taken from the outside, their matter is completely alien to the human substance. And the flesh, conceived from the very beginning, formed and born in the mother’s womb along with the soul, is united with it in every action. For although the apostle calls the flesh a “vessel,” which he commands to be “kept in honor” (1 Thess. 4:4), he also calls the external man that way, namely, that dust that was first called by the name of a man, and not a cup, a sword, or some kind of vessel. After all, she received the name of the vessel because of her ability to receive and store the soul; and the name of man is for participation in that nature, which uses it in its actions not as an instrument, but as a servant. Therefore, she is subject to judgment as a servant, for she herself does not think, but is a part of what she thinks, and not a utensil. And the apostle, knowing that the flesh in itself does nothing that is not imputed to the soul, nevertheless considers it “sinful” (cf. Rom. 8:3), so that they would not think that it is free from judgment, since it is clearly guided by the soul. This is what he says when he means some glorious deeds of the flesh: “Glorify and bear God in your body” (1 Cor. 6:20), although he knows that these actions are performed by the soul. However, he attributes them to the flesh, because he promises it a reward. Otherwise, it would be impossible to blame the flesh, which is alien to guilt, nor to encourage it if glory is inaccessible to it; This means that both accusation and encouragement would not concern the flesh if the reward, which is found in resurrection, did not belong to it. 17. Anyone who simple-mindedly follows our opinion will think that the flesh must therefore stand trial, because otherwise the soul does not feel either torment or relief, for it is incorporeal. That's what the crowd thinks. Here too we declare that the soul is corporeal, and in a special book we prove that its substance has a special kind of density, as a result of which it can feel and suffer. For the example of Lazarus testifies that even now souls in the underworld suffer and enjoy, although they are naked and deprived of flesh. Of course, I gave my opponent a reason to say: “Consequently, the soul, which has a special corporeality (corpulentia), will of itself be capable of suffering and feeling, and therefore will not need the flesh.” No, she will need, but not because she cannot feel anything without the flesh, but because her sensation is firmly connected with the flesh. After all, as much as she has enough of her own strength to act, she also has enough of it to suffer. But she doesn’t have enough strength of her own to act. For in itself it can only think, want, crave, dispose; and to accomplish this she needs the help of the flesh. Likewise, to suffer, she needs communication with the flesh, for with its help she is just as susceptible to suffering as without it she is incapable of action. Therefore, the soul first of all receives retribution for what it has enough strength for: passions, thoughts, desires. Further, if this were enough to complete the merits and if deeds were not also required, and the soul alone would be completely sufficient to carry out the judgment, then it would be judged for what it was able to do on its own. But since deeds must also be subject to retribution, and deeds are accomplished with the help of the flesh, it is no longer enough for the soul to be blissful or tormented without the flesh for deeds that also belong to the flesh. Although the soul has a body, although it has members, they are not sufficient for both complete sensation and complete action. Therefore, she suffers in hell for what she did, being the first to eat, since she was the first to commit the crime; however, she also expects the flesh, so that, with the help of the one to whom she has entrusted her thoughts, she will receive reward for her deeds. Thus, therefore, the judgment will take place, appointed for the end of the world, so that the Divine sentence can be pronounced upon the presentation of all flesh. Otherwise, if it were appointed only for souls, there would be no need to postpone until the end of the world what they are already reaping in the kingdom of the dead. 18. My preliminary remarks thus far have been intended to strengthen all those passages of Scripture which promise the restoration of the flesh. Since so many testimonies of conscientious defenders speak in its favor (I mean the merits of the substance itself [flesh], the power of God, examples of it, the grounds and necessity of judgment), then, of course, it will be correct to understand Scripture in accordance with this multitude of testimonies, and not with the speculations of heretics. Speculations arise from sheer unbelief, which considers it impossible that a substance stolen by death could be restored. However, it is not said that the flesh itself did not deserve this, or that it was impossible for God or inaccessible to judgment. All this, of course, would be incredible if it had not been announced by God. However, even if this had not been announced by God, one would have to independently assume that it was not announced precisely because it was foretold in advance by numerous testimonies. But since [this truth] is also proclaimed by Divine words, it should not be understood differently than required by the evidence by which it is proclaimed apart from Divine words. So let us first consider the name under which this hope is declared. I think everyone has one commandment of God before their eyes: the resurrection of the dead. Two powerful, precise, clear words. I intend to proceed to them, examine them and [find out] what substance they belong to. When I hear that a person is facing resurrection, I certainly find out what is destined for destruction in him, since only that which was previously destroyed awaits resurrection. Only one who does not know that the flesh perishes due to death can not know that it is supported by life. Nature announces God’s sentence: “There is earth, and into earth you will go” (Gen. 3:19), and whoever does not hear this sees that all death is the destruction of members. The Lord Himself expressed this lot of the body when, having clothed itself in this very substance, He said: “Destroy this church, and in three days I will rebuild it” (John 2:19). By this He showed who the destruction, disappearance, fall belonged to, and who the rise and restoration belonged to. He Himself carried within Himself a soul that “trembled unto death” (Matthew 26:38), but did not fall from death; for Scripture says: “He spoke of His own body” (John 2:21). So, it is the flesh that is destroyed by death and, due to the “fall” (a cadendo), is declared a corpse, “carrion” (cadaver). But in relation to the soul, the word “fall” is not used, because its appearance is not destroyed. On the contrary, it destroys the body when it leaves, and when entering, it creates it from the earth. That which, by entering, creates, cannot fall; that which, coming out, causes a fall, cannot be destroyed. I will say even more precisely: the soul does not even “fall” into sleep together with the body, it never indulges in rest together with the flesh, for even in sleep it is active and restless. She would only be at peace if she were lying down. So, the soul does not “fall” at actual death, just as it does not bow down in its likeness. Next, consider what substance the next word – “dead” – refers to. In this connection we must observe that heretics sometimes attribute mortality to the soul. And if, therefore, the mortal soul were to receive resurrection, it would imply that it would likewise impart resurrection to mortal flesh. But now we need to connect the own meaning of this word with the fate it denotes. If resurrection refers to that which “fell,” that is, to the flesh, then the word “dead” also refers to it. For the resurrection of the “dead” means the restoration of that which has “fallen.” This is how we learned from Abraham, the forefather of the faith, a man honored with Divine friendship. Asking the sons of Heth for a place to bury Sarah, he said: “Give me a grave from you, and I will bury my dead” (Gen. 23:4), meaning flesh. For he would not have sought any place for the burial of the soul, even if it were considered mortal, and really deserved the name “dead.” So, if the “dead” is the body, then when we talk about the “resurrection of the dead,” we mean the resurrection of bodies. 19. So, consideration of these words (taken, of course, in their true meaning) and their meaning should help ensure that the obvious always prevails and the wrong is eliminated by the faithful, if the other side introduces some kind of confusion under the guise of symbols and riddles. For some, encountering the usual form of prophetic speech, often, but not always, clothed in allegory and image, give a perverse allegorical interpretation even to the clearly announced resurrection of the dead. arguing that death should be understood in a spiritual way “For the death familiar to everyone,” they say, “is in fact not the separation of flesh and soul, but ignorance of God, because of which man, being dead to God, rests in error, as in a tomb. Therefore, true resurrection occurs when someone, having found access to the truth, again found soul and life for God, and, having crushed the death of ignorance, it was as if he had emerged from the tomb of the old man, for the Lord compared the scribes and Pharisees to “whitened tombs” (Matthew 23:27). From this it follows that those who by faith have received the resurrection remain with the Lord after they have put on Him through baptism.” “With such cunning in conversations, they often created the false impression among us that they themselves allowed the resurrection of the flesh. “Woe to him who is not resurrected in this flesh,” they say (for fear of immediately alienating ours with a direct denial of the resurrection). But secretly, to themselves, they think: “Woe to him who, while in the flesh, did not know the heretical secret teaching,” - this is their resurrection. Many, in turn, recognizing the resurrection after the exodus of the soul, understand it in the sense that the rising from the grave is the leaving of the world, for the world is the abode of the dead, that is, those who do not know God. Many understand resurrection even as a way out of the body itself, because the body, like a tomb, tightly holds the locked soul by the death of worldly life. 20. And so, in order to refute this kind of interpretation, I intend to destroy their fundamental basis, namely, the assertion that the prophets all preached using images. For, in this case, if something real (veritates) were not proclaimed, from which the images were borrowed, it would not be possible to distinguish the images themselves. Or better yet, if there were only images, what would the subject of the image be? Why hold a mirror up to yourself if your face is nowhere to be seen? So not everything is images, but there is also reality; not all are shadows, but there are also bodies, and about the Lord Himself we have predictions that are clearer than any light. After all, the Virgin “conceived in her womb” not figuratively and gave birth to “Immanuel, God with us” (Is. 7:14; Matt. 1:23), Jesus, not allegorically. And if He had to receive “the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria” (Is. 8:4) allegorically, then He had to come to the judgment “with the elders and princes of the people” (3:14) in the literal sense. For “the nations were troubled” in the person of Pilate, and “the nations were plotting in vain” in the person of Israel; “The kings of the earth rose up” - Herod, and “the rulers united together” - Annas and Caiaphas 14 - “against the Lord and His Christ” (Ps. 2:1-2). “He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and like a lamb before the shearer” - before Herod - “he was silent, He opened not His mouth” (Is. 53:7). “He gave His back to the whips, His cheeks to the hands, and He did not turn His face away from spitting” (50:6). “He was counted among the evildoers” (53:12), “he was pierced in the hands and feet,” allowed “the casting of lots for his clothing” (Ps. 21:17,19), drank “a bitter drink” (68:22), “those who laughed nodded their heads at Him” (21:8), after He was “sold by a traitor for thirty pieces of silver” (Zech. 11:12). What figures does Isaiah have here, what images does David have, what hints does Jeremiah have? Even His great deeds were not foreshadowed in parables. Or were “the eyes of the blind not opened”? Has not “the tongue of the dumb received the gift of speech”? Were not “dry hands and weakened feet strengthened”? Did not “the lame man leap like a deer” ( Isa. 35:5–6 )? Although we usually interpret these words spiritually, referring them to mental illnesses healed by the Lord, they were also fulfilled in relation to the body, which means that the prophets predicted in one and the other sense, and most of their sayings are undoubtedly frank, clear and free from all vague allegories. When they proclaim the destruction of nations and cities, Tire, Egypt, Babylon, Idumea, Carthaginian courts; when they talk about the punishments and rewards of Israel itself, about its captivity, restoration and its final disastrous dispersion (see, for example, Is. 13–23), - who would prefer an allegory here to the literal meaning? Events are contained in letters, and letters are read in events. So, the form of prophetic speech is not always and not in everything allegorical, but only sometimes and in some ways. 21. “But if,” you say, “sometimes this happens in some ways, then why shouldn’t the proclamation of the resurrection be understood spiritually?” - Because there is a lot of evidence against this. Firstly, what is the meaning of so many Divine books (instrumenta), which so clearly testify to the bodily resurrection that they do not allow a hint of a figurative understanding of it? But in any case, it would be fair, as we indicated above, to judge the doubtful by the certain, the dark by the clear, so that, at least (due to the disagreement between the undoubted and the doubtful, the clear and the dark), faith would not perish, the truth would not be endangered, and the Divinity itself would not be blamed for inconstancy. It is furthermore incredible that that most important sacrament, which holds together all faith, on which all teaching rests, should be ambiguously proclaimed and unclearly expressed. After all, if the hope of resurrection leaves doubt about reward and punishment, it will not persuade anyone to religion, especially one that is open to public hatred and hostile verdicts. Every deed is doubtful if the reward is doubtful, every fear is false if the danger is doubtful. But both the reward and the danger of losing it depend on the outcome of the resurrection. If the temporal, local, and particular judgments of God concerning cities, nations, and kings are so clearly announced by the prophets, why should His eternal decrees, common to the whole human race, be devoid of light? The more important they are, the clearer they must be in order to be considered more important. And I believe that neither ill will, nor cunning, nor changeability, nor pompousness, which are usually the fault of promulgated solemn decrees, can be attributed to God. 22. After this, we must consider those passages of Scripture that do not allow (together with these “mental,” not to say “spiritual”) the resurrection of the dead either as knowledge of the truth already in this life, or as occurring immediately after death. Since the time for all our hope is indicated by the sacred text, and, I believe, it cannot be appointed before the coming of Christ, our hopes are directed towards the end of this age, towards the end of the world, towards the coming of the great day of the Lord, the day of wrath and vengeance, the last and hidden day, which is known to no one except the Father, although foreshadowed by signs and wonders, the vibrations of the elements and the conflicts of the nations. I would retell the prophecies if the Lord Himself had kept silent about it (although the prophecies were the voice of the Lord), but it is much more important that He confirmed with His lips. Asked by his disciples when what He had previously revealed about the destruction of the church would happen, He outlined the order of times, first Jewish - up to the destruction of Jerusalem, and then common to all nations - until the end of the age. For after He declared: “Then Jerusalem will be trampled upon by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Luke 21:24), meaning those who will be accepted by God and united with the remnant of Israel, He then foretells (like Joel, Daniel (Joel 3:9-16; Dan. 7:13 et seq.) and the whole host of prophets) the world and century that “there will be signs in the sun, moon and stars, a clash of nations and their horror from the roar of the sea, and the confusion of people weakened by fear and expectation of what will threaten the earthly circle. For the powers of heaven,” He says, “will be shaken, and then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. When these things begin to come true, then lift up your heads and lift them up, because redemption is at hand” (Luke 21:25–28). And yet He said “it is near,” not “has already come,” and “when it begins to come true,” and not “when it comes to pass,” because when it comes to pass, then our redemption will come; saying that it is still only approaching, He approves in the meantime and excites the soul to the already close fruit of hope, clothed in allegory - the trees bloom, foreshadowing flowers, and then fruits: “So you too, when you see that all this is happening, know that the Kingdom of God is near” (Luke 21:31). “Watch therefore at all times, so that you may be worthy to escape all this and be able to stand before the Son of Man” (Luke 21:36), - of course, through the resurrection, when all this has already been accomplished. So, although [the tree] blossoms at the knowledge of the mysteries, it blossoms and bears fruit at the appearance of the Lord. Who so untimely and so boldly demanded from the Lord, who sits at the right hand of God, to “crush the earth,” as Isaiah puts it (Is. 2:19), which, I believe, is still unharmed? Who, in the words of David, “has already thrown the enemies of Christ under His feet” (Ps. 109:1) (as if He is in a hurry more than the Father), when even now any crowd loudly demands: “Christians are to the lions”? Who saw that Jesus descended from heaven in the same way, according to the statement of the angels, as the apostles saw Him ascending into heaven? Until this day, tribe after tribe, they have not beaten their breasts, having learned Whom they have pierced, no one has yet met Elijah, no one has yet run away from the Antichrist, no one has yet wept over the destruction of Babylon, and no one has yet risen, except perhaps a heretic (Acts 1:11; Zech. 12:10-12; Mal. 4:5; Rev. 12:6; 18:9, etc.). And He really left the tomb of His body, although He is now subject to fevers and ulcers, He has already overthrown His enemies, although He is still forced to fight the mighty of this world, and, of course, He is already reigning, although He still must give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. 23. True, the apostle teaches in the Epistle to the Colossians that we were once “dead, alien and hostile in spirit to the Lord,” when we “did evil works” (Col. 1:21), and then were buried with Christ in baptism and raised again in Him through faith in the power of God, which raised Him from the dead: “And you, who were dead in sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive with Him and forgave you all your sins” ( Col. 2:12–13 ). And again: “If you and Christ died to the elements of the world, why do you hold fast to statutes as if you were living in the world” ( Col. 2:20 )? If he thus presents us as spiritually dead, admitting, however, that we will one day die bodily, then, considering us to have already been resurrected spiritually, he does not deny that we will also be resurrected physically. For example, he says: “If you have been raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sits at the right hand of God; set your mind on the things that are above, and not on the things below” ( Col. 3:1–2 ). Thus, he indicates that we will be resurrected in spirit, with which alone we can now touch the heavenly. We would not seek or present it if we owned it. He also adds: “For you died,” of course, to sins, and not to yourself, “and your life is hidden with Christ in God” (Col. 3:3). So, that life which is hidden has not yet been comprehended. John also says: “It has not yet been revealed what we will be. We only know that we will be like Him if He is revealed” (1 John 3:2). It is impossible that we should already be what we do not know, for, of course, we would know if we were already it. Consequently, hope at this time is only contemplated by faith, it is not in front of us or with us, but is only expected. Paul tells the Galatians about this hope and this expectation: “We in the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness through faith” (5:5). He doesn't say, "We have it." By the righteousness of God he means the Judgment at which we will receive reward. Expecting it for himself, he writes to the Philippians: “If I somehow attain to the resurrection from the dead, this does not mean that I have already obtained or perfected” (Phil. 3:11-12). He, the vessel of election, the teacher of the pagans, of course, believed and knew all the sacraments perfectly, and yet he adds: “I strive to see if I will find that in which I have been found by Christ” (12). And moreover: “Brothers, I do not consider myself to have achieved; forgetting what is behind and reaching forward to the goal, I strive for an unapproachable reward, which I must achieve” (13-14). Of course, this is a resurrection from the dead, but it will come in its own time - for he says to the Galatians: “Do not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap” (6:9); Likewise Timothy about Onesiphorus: “May the Lord grant him to find mercy in that day” (2 Tim. 1:18). For that day and for that time, he commands him to “keep the commandment purely and blamelessly, until the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ, which will be revealed in due time by the blessed and only Sovereign and King of kings” (1 Tim. 6:14-15), that is, God. Peter speaks of these times in Acts: “Repent and take heed that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come to you from the presence of God, and that He may send Christ, who was foretold to us, whom the heavens must receive until the time of the fulfillment of all things which God has spoken by the mouth of the holy prophets” (3:19-21). 24. Find out with the Thessalonians what these times are. For we read: “How you were turned from idols to serving the living and true God, and to looking for His Son Jesus from heaven, whom He raised from the dead” (1 Thess. 1:9-10). And again: “For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of triumph, if you are not before our Lord Jesus Christ at His coming” (2:19). And again: “Before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints” (3:13). While admonishing us not to grieve greatly for those who have died, he also speaks about the time of resurrection: “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, then God will bring with Him those who died through Jesus. For we tell you this by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of our Lord will not precede those who have fallen asleep. Because the Lord Himself, with a proclamation, with the voice of an archangel, with the trumpet of God, will descend from heaven; and those who have died in Christ will be the first to be resurrected, and then we, the living, together with them will be lifted up on the clouds to meet Christ in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord” (4:14-17). Where is the voice of the archangel heard, where is the trumpet of God, if not in the chambers of heretics? For although the gospel word, which had already called them, can be called the trumpet of God, yet they either had to die bodily so that they could be resurrected (otherwise how do they live?), or were taken up into the clouds (otherwise how are they here?). Truly, they are “the most unfortunate,” as the apostle calls those who will cherish hope “only in this life” (1 Cor. 15:19), excluding what is promised after it (for they hasten to receive everything in advance), and wandering around the truth, like Figellus and Hermogenes 15. And therefore the Holy Spirit in all His majesty, foreseeing such opinions, adds in the Epistle to the Thessalonians: “But about times and seasons there is no need to write to you, brothers. For you yourselves know with certainty that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. When they say, “peace” and “safety,” then sudden destruction will come upon them” (1 Thess. 5:1-3). And in the second Epistle to them, the apostle writes with even greater anxiety: “I beseech you, brothers, for the sake of the coming of our Lord and our joining to Him, that you do not hasten to trouble your minds and worry either because of the spirit, or because of the word (of course, the false prophets), or because of the message (of course, the false apostles), supposedly ours, as if the day of the Lord is already coming. Let no one deceive you in any way, for [it will not come] until a falling away comes first (from this kingdom, of course), and the man of sin (that is, the Antichrist), the son of perdition, is revealed, who will oppose and exalt himself over everything that is called God or that is holy, so that he sits in the church of God, claiming that he is God. Don't you remember that I told you this when I was with you? And now you know what's holding him back from opening up in due time. For the mystery of iniquity is already at work; only he who now holds it back [will hold it] until he is taken out of the middle” (2:1-7). Who is this if not the Roman state, the fall and division of which among ten kings will be accomplished by the Antichrist? “And then the wicked one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will put to death with the spirit of His mouth, and will destroy by the manifestation of His coming the one whose coming, according to the working of Satan, will be accompanied by all power, false signs and wonders, and all unrighteous deception of those who are perishing” (8-10). 25. Thus, in Revelation, the order of times is revealed, which the souls of the martyrs, under the altar crying out for vengeance and judgment, learned to endure, so that first the world would drink its suffering from the cups of angels, so that the dissolute city would find its deserved end with ten kings, so that the beast Antichrist with his false prophet began to fight with the church and so that, after the temporary overthrow of the devil into the abyss, the commemoration of the first would take place from the thrones. resurrection, and then (when the devil is finally consigned to fire) the judgment of the general resurrection was pronounced, according to the books (Rev. 6:9–11; 15:7; 16:1; 17:12; 19:19–20; 20:4–12). So, since Scripture indicates the order of the last times and refers the entire fruit of Christian hope to the end of the age, it is clear that either then everything that has been promised to us by God will be fulfilled (and, therefore, everything that the heretics are already promising here will be in vain); or, if the knowledge of the highest sacrament is the resurrection, then in this case one can believe what was predicted about the end of the world, without in the least denying the above opinion. Moreover, since one resurrection is considered spiritual, it follows precisely from this that the other must be considered bodily, because if nothing was announced for the [last] time, then only one and, moreover, a spiritual resurrection would be rightly recognized. But if a resurrection is proclaimed for the last time, it is recognized as bodily, because along with it a spiritual resurrection is not predicted. Such, that is, spiritual, resurrection would have to take place either now, regardless of the difference in time, or then, at the general end of time. So, it is more suitable for us to even defend the spiritual resurrection with the acceptance of faith, but we recognize the fullness of the resurrection at the end of the age. 26. To the previous objection regarding the allegorical properties of Scripture, I will now give one answer: we can affirm the bodily resurrection, relying on the figurative expressions of the prophets. Here, for example, is the first sentence spoken by God when He called man earth: “There is earth, and to earth you will go” (Gen. 3:19). Here, of course, we have in mind the corporeal substance which is taken from the earth and which, as we have shown, was in the beginning called man; this gives me reason to attribute to the flesh everything that the Lord, in wrath or mercy, has determined for the earth. After all, a land that has done nothing good or evil is, in fact, not subject to His judgment. Although she was cursed, for she accepted blood into herself, but only as an image of the flesh of a murderer. If the earth has to enjoy or suffer, then this also applies to man - so that he enjoys or suffers for his home: for he will rather compensate for what even the earth suffers because of him. So, when God threatens the earth, I would say that He rather threatens the flesh; and when He promises something to the earth, then, in my opinion, He rather promises the flesh, as, for example, in David: “The Lord reigns, let the earth triumph” (Ps. 97:1), that is, the flesh of the saints, who are destined to enjoy the Kingdom of God. Then He continues: “The earth saw and trembled, the mountains melted like wax at the presence of the Lord” (4-5), that is, the flesh of the wicked, and: “They will look on Him whom they pierced” (Zech. 12:10). If all these expressions are really attributed only to the earth as an element, then how is it combined that the earth trembled and melted at the face of the Lord, which before, seeing His royal greatness, triumphed? So it is in Isaiah: “You will eat the good things of the earth” (1:19), - we are talking about the good things that await the flesh in the Kingdom of God, when the flesh is transformed, becomes like the angels and acquires what “no eye has seen, no ear has heard, and what has not entered the heart of man” (1 Cor. 2:9). Moreover, it is quite absurd that God should call for obedience by the fruits of the fields and the food of this life, equally intended for the atheists and blasphemers, for He once and for all gave His creation to man, “shedding rain on the good and on the evil, sending His sun on the just and the unjust” (Matthew 5:45). What happiness it is for faith if it achieves what the enemies of God and Christ not only use, but also abuse, “worshipping the creation itself to the detriment of the Creator” (Rom. 1:25)! Perhaps we should count onions and truffles among the blessings of the earth, for the Lord says that “man shall not live by bread alone” (Matthew 4:4)? Thus, the Jews, placing their hope only on earthly things, lose heavenly things, knowing neither the bread promised from heaven, nor the oil of Divine anointing, nor the moisture of the spirit, nor the wine of the soul, strengthened by the vine of Christ. Therefore, they consider the land of Judaism in the proper sense to be a holy land, while by it we should rather understand the flesh of the Lord, which therefore and in all who have put on Christ will be a Holy Land, truly Holy due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, actually flowing with milk and honey due to the attractiveness of hope itself, truly Jewish due to closeness with God - for “he is not a Jew who is openly a Jew, but he who is secretly” ( Rom.2:28–29). Therefore, the flesh will also be the church of God and Jerusalem, listening to the words of Isaiah: “Arise, arise, O Jerusalem, clothe yourself with the power of your hand, arise as at the beginning of the day” (51:9), that is, in that integrity that is before criminal sin. For can such encouraging and consoling words apply to that Jerusalem, which killed the prophets and stoned those sent to it, and in the end pierced its Lord Himself? And in general, salvation is not promised to any land, for it must pass away “along with the image of the whole world” (cf. 1 Cor. 7:31). And if anyone dares to prove that the Holy Land is, rather, paradise, since the name “land of the fathers” suits it, that is, the land of Adam and Eve, then it turns out that this flesh was promised restoration to paradise and was appointed to dwell in it and keep it, so that the same person who was expelled from there would return there. 27. We know, further, that the mention of clothing in Scripture allegorically denotes the hope of the flesh. The Revelation of John says: “These are they who have not stained their garments with their wives” (cf. 3:4; 14:4), meaning virgins and “who have castrated themselves for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 19:12). So, they will be “in white robes” (cf. Rev. 3:5), that is, in the purity of a virgin body. And in the Gospel, the “wedding garment” (cf. Matt. 22:11) can be understood as the holiness of the flesh. Therefore, Isaiah, teaching what kind of fast the Lord chose for himself, and then discussing the reward for good, says: “Then your morning light will appear and your robe will rise quickly” (Is. 58:8) 16. He wanted this to mean, of course, not half-silk clothing or a cloak, but the flesh, the resurrection of which from mortal destruction he preached. So, the allegorical defense of the bodily resurrection is sufficient for us. After all, if we read: “My people, enter into the storehouses for a little while, until My wrath passes away” (26:20), then the storerooms will be tombs, and in them should rest for a short time those who at the end of the age will pass away during the final wrath of the Antichrist. Why did he prefer to use the word “storehouses” rather than a word denoting some other storage facility, if not because salted meat intended for consumption is stored in the storerooms, which must be taken from there in due course? After all, bodies are embalmed with aromas for burial and buried in mausoleums and crypts in order to come out from there when the Lord commands. If it needs to be understood this way - for what storerooms could serve us as a refuge from the wrath of God? - then, by saying: “Until My wrath passes away” (which will destroy the Antichrist), he precisely makes it known that the flesh after the day of wrath will come out of the tomb in which it was laid before the day of wrath. After all, only what was put in them is taken out of the storerooms. And after the destruction of the Antichrist, the resurrection will take place. 28. But we know that prophecies were expressed not only verbally, but also materially. The resurrection is also announced both in words and in actions. For example, when Moses puts his hand in his bosom, takes it out dry, and then puts it in again and pulls it out alive (Exodus 4:2–9), isn’t this a prophecy about every person? For this threefold sign signifies the threefold Power of God and the order of its actions: first it will subjugate the devil, the terrible serpent, to man, then it will draw out the flesh from the bosom of death and, finally, it will demand all the blood for judgment. God speaks about this from the same prophet: “I will require your blood from all beasts, and from the hand of man and from the hand of a brother I will require it” (Gen. 9:5). But they only collect what they demand back; They demand back only what should be returned, and what will be returned, of course, is what will be demanded back and exacted for retribution. After all, something that never happened cannot receive retribution. However, [in this case] it will come into existence when it is restored in order to receive reward. So, everything that is prophesied about the blood also applies to the flesh, without which there would be no blood. The flesh will be resurrected so that the blood will receive its vengeance. There are also judgments in Scripture that are expressed in such a way that they are devoid of the veil of allegory, but their very simplicity requires interpretation. For example, in Isaiah: “I will kill and give life” 17. Of course, He will give life after He kills. Therefore, he who puts to death through death will give life through resurrection. But that which is put to death through death is the flesh; therefore she will also receive life through the resurrection. Without a doubt, if to kill means to take away the soul from the flesh, and vice versa, to return the soul to the flesh means to give life, then it is necessary that the same flesh be resurrected, to which, through the giving of life, the soul that was taken away through mortification must be returned. 29. If, then, allegorical passages of Scripture, proofs in actions and unequivocal sayings clearly point to the resurrection of the flesh (without mentioning, however, the substance itself), how much more certain will be those passages that refer this hope to bodily substances, making special mention of it? Take Ezekiel. “The hand of the Lord was upon me,” he says, “and the Lord brought me out in the spirit and set me in the middle of the field. It was full of bones, and He took me around them, and behold, many of them were on the surface of the field, and they were very dry. And He said to me: Son of man! will these bones come to life? And I said: Adonai, Lord! You know it. And He told me. Prophesy about these bones and say to them: the bones are dry! listen to the word of the Lord. The Lord Adonai says the following to the bones: Behold, I will put spirit into you, and you will live, and I will send sinews to you and return you to flesh, I will cover you with skin and put spirit into you, and you will live, and you will know that I am the Lord. And I prophesied according to the instructions. And there was a noise when I prophesied, and there was a movement, and the bones began to approach the bones. I looked, and veins appeared on the bones, flesh and skin formed on them, but the spirit was not yet in them. And He said to me: prophesy to the spirit, son of man, prophesy also to the spirit: The Lord Adonai says this: come, O spirit, from the four winds, and blow on these slain, and they will live. And I prophesied to the spirit, as He commanded me, and the spirit entered into them, and they lived and stood on their feet, becoming a very great force. And He said to me: Son of man! These bones are the whole house of Israel. They themselves say: “Our bones have dried up, and our hope has perished, we are torn from them.” Therefore prophesy to them: Behold, I will open your graves, and I will bring you, My people, out of your graves, and will bring you into the land of Israel, and you will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and bring you, My people, out of your graves, and put spirit in you, and you will live and rest in your land, and you will know that I, the Lord, have spoken and done it, says the Lord.” Ezek.37:1-14). 30. I know how they torment this prophecy in order to find an allegory in it; for with the words: “These bones are the whole house of Israel,” the Lord made them an image of Israel and deprived them of their own properties, and therefore the resurrection is predicted here only figuratively, and not literally. The Jewish state, they say, really fell, and therefore in some way died, dried up and scattered across the field of the universe. Therefore, the image of the resurrection is applied to it allegorically, for this state is to be collected and reunited bone to bone (that is, knee to knee and people to people) and again regain the flesh of strength and the sinews of the kingdom. It will be brought out of the tombs, that is, from the saddest and most disgusting places of captivity, inspired by deliverance and from then on will live in its own land, Judea. And what after that? They will no doubt die. And what after death? I think there will be no resurrection if nothing about it was revealed to Ezekiel. But the resurrection is preached in other places too. Therefore, it will be, and it cannot be thoughtlessly understood as the state of the Jewish state. But if what is meant here is not the resurrection that we defend, why should I care? There would only be a resurrection of bodies, similar to the resurrection of the Jewish state. However, the restoration of the Jewish state is depicted as re-endowing the bones with a body and giving them life - and this proves that the same thing will happen with [all] bones. After all, it was impossible to consider bones as an image of resurrection if they were not destined for the same thing. And even if the image conveys the outlines of the real, it itself has its own reality. It is necessary that he exist in himself before he becomes the image of another. There can be no resemblance to something that does not exist; a parable based on nothing is absurd. So, it is necessary to allow the restoration of flesh and breath to the bones, as was described: and only in accordance with this can the restoration of the kingdom of Judah be depicted, as it was imagined. However, it is more appropriate for piety to defend the truth based on a literal understanding, as required by the meaning of Divine preaching. After all, if this vision related to Jewish affairs, then God, having revealed to [Ezekiel] the position of the bones, would immediately add: “These bones are the whole house of Israel,” and so on. However, He, having shown the bones, immediately speaks of their special hope, without naming Israel, and tests the faith of the prophet: “Son of man! will these bones come to life?, and he answers: Lord! You know this"; but God, of course, would not test the prophet’s faith with something that should not happen, which Israel had never heard of, which did not need to be believed. But since the resurrection of the dead was announced, and Israel, due to its unbelief, doubted, was tempted and, at the sight of the old appearance of the buried, despaired of the resurrection, or, at least, directed its attention not to it, but to its own circumstances, then God first prepared the prophet (who himself hesitated) for firmness in preaching, revealing to him the order of the resurrection. He commanded that the people believe in what He revealed to the prophet, saying that the bones that were to be resurrected were the very people who did not believe in the resurrection. Finally, in conclusion, He says: “And you will know that I, the Lord, have spoken and done this,” intending, of course, to do what I said; however, His intention would be at odds with His words if He did not do what He said. 31. It is clear that if the people were complaining that their bones were dry and hope was lost, grumbling about the disastrous dispersion, then God would rightly console imaginary despair with an imaginary promise. And since the disaster of dispersion had not yet happened to the people, and the hope of the resurrection was announced to them very often, it was clear that the destruction of the bodies shook faith in the resurrection. Therefore, God aroused faith, which had faded among the people. But if other troubles really tormented Israel at that time, then the meaning of the revelation should still be understood not as a parable, but as evidence of the resurrection, in order to arouse among the people the hope of eternal salvation and the urgent resurrection, and to divert their gaze from the disasters of that time. Other prophets also strived for this: “You will come out of the graves like calves when they are released from the ropes, and you will trample on your enemies” (Mal. 4:2). And again: “Your heart will rejoice, and your bones will sprout like grass” (Is. 66:14), because grass is renewed by the decomposition and decay of the seeds. That is, if the vision of resurrecting bones refers exclusively to the state of Israel, then why is the same hope proclaimed not only to Israel, but to all nations, that the dead remains will again receive a body, will again be animated and the dead will rise from their graves? After all, it is said about everyone: “The dead will live and come out of their graves; for the dew that comes from You is medicine for their bones” (26:19). And elsewhere: “All flesh will come before My sight to worship, says the Lord” (66:23). When? When the image of this world begins to pass. For it is said above: “For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will create, will be in My sight, says the Lord, so will your seed be also” (22). Then what he adds will be fulfilled: “And they will come out (of course, from the graves) and see the members of those who led an ungodly life, because their worm will not perish and their fire will not be quenched, and they will be a spectacle for all flesh” (24), - of course, for that flesh that, having been resurrected and emerging from the graves, will worship God for this mercy. 32. And so that it does not seem that the resurrection is announced only to those bodies that are entrusted to the tombs, there is also such a passage of Scripture: “I will command the fish of the sea, and they will throw up the bones that they have swallowed, and I will connect joint to joint and bone to bone” 18. “So,” you say, “fish, and wild animals, and carnivorous birds will be resurrected, so that they can vomit up the people they have devoured, for one can also read in Moses (Gen. 9:4-5) that blood will be exacted from all animals?” - Of course not. Wild animals and fish are appointed to return flesh and blood, so that the resurrection of even swallowed bodies will be all the more certain, since the devourers themselves are commanded to return them. A suitable example of this power of God is, in my opinion, Jonah, for he came out of the belly of the fish without any harm to either substance, flesh or spirit, although the belly of a whale in three days could have digested the flesh as easily as a coffin, a grave, or some other place of solitary and secret burial. However, animals could also designate people who are hostile and cruel to the Christian name, or even angels of wickedness, from whom blood will be exacted through appropriate punishment. So, the one who is more inclined to doctrine than to dreams, who cares more about faith than about debates, who reveres Divine wisdom more than enjoys his own - will he, having heard the decisions of God regarding flesh, skin and sinews, understand this decision differently and believe that what is predicted for these substances is not assigned to man? For: either nothing is assigned to man, neither the gift of the kingdom, nor the severity of judgment, nor the outcome of the resurrection, - or (if this is assigned to a person) it must also be assigned to the substances of which man is composed, and for whom it is appointed. I ask these most skillful “transformers” of bones, flesh, veins and coffins: why do they, if something is announced about the soul, not consider the soul to be something else and do not represent it as an image of something else, whereas if we are talking about something corporeal, they always prefer a different meaning than the one named? If the physical is spoken of only figuratively, why does this not also apply to the spiritual? And if the spiritual is not subject to allegory, then neither is the physical. After all, a person is as much a body as a soul, and one part of him cannot allow allegory and exclude the other. 33. This is quite clear from the prophetic writings. Now I turn to the Gospel. And here I intend to object first to the usual wickedness of those who claim that the Lord also set out everything in parables, for it is written: “Whatever Jesus spoke in parables, he did not speak to them without a parable” (Matthew 13:34), that is, to the Jews. After all, the disciples asked: “Why do you speak in parables?” (13:10). And the Lord answered: “Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see and hearing they do not hear” (13:13), according to Isaiah (Isaiah 6:9). So, if He spoke in parables to the Jews, then not to everyone else, and if not to everyone, then not always, and not only in parables, but only sometimes to certain individuals. These persons, of course, are the same Jews, and sometimes even His disciples. However, consider how Scripture tells about this: “He also told them a parable” (Luke 6:39; 18:9). This means that He usually did not speak in parables. If He always spoke parables, it would not be noted that He spoke a parable. In addition, there is not a single parable that was not explained by Him Himself (for example, the parable of the sower as about preaching the word), not explained by the compiler of the Gospel (for example, about the proud judge and the persistent widow as about constancy in prayer), or, finally, simply misunderstood (the parable of the fig tree, which was spared for the sake of hope for its improvement, recalls the ingratitude of the Jewish people) ( Matthew 13:18–23; Luke 18:1–5; So, if parables do not obscure the light of the Gospel, then those sayings and judgments that are clear by nature should not be understood differently than they say. But the Lord pronounces the Judgment, the Kingdom of God and the Resurrection precisely in the form of judgments and sayings. “It will be easier,” He says, “for Tire and Sidon on the day of judgment” (cf. Matt. 11:22); and: “Tell them that the kingdom of God is at hand” (10:7); and again: “You will be rewarded in the resurrection of the righteous” (Luke 14:14). If the names of these events - that is, the Judgment, the Kingdom of God and the Resurrection - completely embrace the subject, so that nothing can be extracted from them for a parable, then one should not forcefully turn the sermon about the dispensation, implementation and suffering of the Kingdom, Judgment and Resurrection into a parable. So, let us consider these objects to be corporeal, that is, not spiritual, not images, because they are intended for the corporeal. That is why we have given evidence in advance that both the body of the soul and the body of the flesh are subject to retribution, which must be rewarded for their common activity, so that the corporeality of the flesh is not excluded by the corporeality of the soul, which prompts allegory. For we must believe that both substances participate in the Kingdom, Judgment and Resurrection. And now we intend to show that the Lord, with every mention of the resurrection, has in mind the fleshly physicality (without denying the spiritual one) - which few recognized. 34. Let's start from the place where He says that “he came to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). What do you think died? Without a doubt, a man. All or only partially? Of course, all of them. For crime, the cause of human destruction, is committed as much by the impulse and desire of the soul as by the action of the flesh, namely, eating. From that time on, the whole person fell under accusation and was deservedly filled with destruction. Therefore, the one who was completely lost by sinning will be completely saved. Maybe that sheep was lost without a body and found without a body? (Luke 15:4-6). But if the good shepherd carries her flesh and soul on his shoulders, and the sheep intact, this shows that both substances will be restored in man. After all, how unworthy of God is to save only half of a person and thereby limit [His forgiveness], when they always ask for complete forgiveness from worldly rulers. So, is the devil, who destroys the whole person, more powerful, and God, who raises him up as a whole, turns out to be weaker? The Apostle, however, believes: “When sin abounded, grace abounded all the more” (Rom. 5:20). But how does one find salvation who can be called lost? He, of course, perished in the flesh, but was saved in the soul, otherwise it will be necessary to recognize the soul as lost so that its salvation can be accomplished, for salvation is ordained for that which has perished. However, we consider the soul immortal and we see its destruction not in destruction, but in torment, that is, in Gehenna. And if this is so, then salvation will not refer to the soul, “saved” by virtue of its natural immortality, but rather to the flesh, whose mortality is known to all. And if the soul also perishes, that is, like the flesh, it is not immortal, then the rule should equally apply to the flesh, mortal and transient, according to which the Lord intends to restore what has perished. I do not want to enter into a dispute and find out in which of the substances a person is made a prey to destruction, if it is clear that he is destined for salvation equally in both substances. For, look: no matter which of the substances a person perishes, he does not perish in the other. So, he will be saved in that substance that does not perish, but, nevertheless, he will be saved in that which perishes. Before you is the restoration of the whole person, for everything that has perished in him, the Lord intends to save, and what has not perished, He, of course, will not destroy. Who will doubt the preservation of both substances if one of them gains salvation and the other does not lose it? And yet the Lord explains the meaning of this, saying: “I came not to do My will, but the will of the Father, who sent Me” (John 6:38). Which one? - I ask you. “So that I may lose nothing of what He has given Me, but raise it up at the last day” (39). What did Christ receive from the Father, if not what He put on? Of course, a person, a combination of flesh and soul. Consequently, He will not tolerate anything that He has received to perish, not even the smallest, most insignificant part of the flesh or soul. Even if the flesh is insignificant, even then it is saved, because everything is saved, even the smallest and most insignificant. And if He does not resurrect the flesh at the last day, He will allow not just one small part of man to perish, but, I say, considering the importance of this part, almost the whole man. Explaining this further, He says, “This is the will of the Father, that whoever sees the Son and believes in Him may have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (40). Here he affirms the fullness of the resurrection, assigning to both substances their due special reward in salvation: both the flesh through which the Son was seen, and the soul through which they believed in Him. “Therefore,” you say, “this is promised to those who have seen Christ.” - Let it be so, but let this hope come to us from them. After all, if for those who saw Him and therefore believed, the action of their body and soul even then bore fruit, then much more so for us. “Blessed are those who see not and believe” (20:29). Therefore our blessedness is greater, and we would have gained the resurrection of the flesh even if it were denied to those [who saw it]. But what kind of bliss is this if we must partly perish? 35. The Lord commands “to fear more the One who can cast body and soul into Gehenna,” that is, only the Lord, and not those “who kill one body but cannot harm the soul” (Matthew 10:28), that is, human rulers. Consequently, the natural immortality of the soul, which cannot be killed by men, and the mortality of the flesh, which can be killed, are recognized here. Therefore, resurrection belongs to the flesh of the dead, for it could not have been cast into Gehenna if it had not been resurrected. But since tricky questions about the meaning of the word “body” are also raised here, I will consider the human body to be precisely this entire pile of flesh, which (no matter what substance it consists of or is formed from) is visible, tangible and, finally, can be killed by a person. For example, by the “body” of a wall I mean nothing more than lime, stones, bricks. If someone teaches about some secret body, let him present it, open it, prove that it is the very thing that can be killed by a person, and then I will agree: I meant it. If the body is opposed to the soul, this trick is also in vain. After all, if it is said that both the body and the soul will be cast into Gehenna, it means that the body is different from the soul, and we can only consider what is in front of us as a body, namely the flesh, which can be cast into Gehenna (if it is not afraid to be killed by God) and come to life for eternal life (if it chose to accept death from people). Likewise, if anyone is rashly inclined to think that the body and soul are cast into Gehenna for destruction and destruction of both substances, and not for torment (as if they should be exterminated and not punished), let him remember that the fire of Gehenna is eternal and is foreshadowed for eternal punishment, and from here conclude that eternal punishment should be feared more than death from people, since the latter is temporary. Then he will also believe in the eternity of substances, for which eternal destruction is destined as punishment. Since after the resurrection the Lord intends to cast body and soul into Gehenna, then both of them must be absolutely certain - both bodily resurrection and eternal death. Otherwise, it would be extremely absurd: the resurrected flesh is cast into Gehenna to completely disappear; the same thing would have happened to her if she had not been resurrected. This means that the substance, which had already ceased to exist, is restored in order to lose it again! To strengthen our hope, the Lord adds the example of two sparrows, of which “not one falls to the ground without the will of God” (cf. Matt. 10:29). You must believe that flesh, lowered into the ground, can be resurrected by the will of the same God. For sparrows, of course, this is impossible, but “we are better than many sparrows” (31) in that we rise after the fall. Finally, the One who claims that “all the hairs of our heads are numbered” (30) certainly promised salvation even to them. After all, if they had to die, then what was the point of counting them? In addition, it is said: “So that of all that the Father has given Me I should lose nothing” (John 6:39), that is, not a hair, not an eye, not a tooth. Otherwise, where will there be “crying and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 8:12, etc.) if not from the eyes and teeth, even when the body is cast into Gehenna and thrown into utter darkness, which brings special torment to the eyes. If anyone at the wedding feast puts on unworthy deeds (Matthew 22:11 et seq.), he must immediately be bound hand and foot, for he was resurrected along with the body. This means that reclining at the table in the Kingdom of God, and sitting on the thrones of Christ, and standing at His right hand and left, and eating from the tree of life - all these are the surest signs of bodily properties. 36. Let us now see whether the Lord has not elevated our judgment even more by overthrowing the cunning of the Sadducees? The aim of the Sadducees, in my opinion, was to refute the resurrection, for they did not recognize the salvation of either soul or flesh, and therefore borrowed the argument in favor of their opinion where the belief in the resurrection is perhaps most vulnerable, namely, whether the flesh will marry after the resurrection or not. The reason for this question was given by one woman who married seven brothers and raised doubts about which of them she would resurrect (Matthew 22:23–28; Mark 12:18–23; Luke 20:27–34). But let the meaning of both the question and the answer be preserved, and the dispute will be settled. After all, the Sadducees rejected the resurrection, but the Lord affirmed it, blaming them for not knowing the Scriptures (namely those places that teach about the resurrection), for not believing in the power of God, capable of raising the dead; then He added that “the dead are raised” (Luke 20:37) (without a doubt), confirming what was denied, namely, the resurrection of the dead by the Living God. With these words He confirmed that resurrection that was denied, namely, the resurrection of both substances of man. And if He then denied that the dead would marry, this did not mean that they would not be resurrected. On the contrary, He called them “sons of the resurrection” (36), for through it they are in a certain way born, and after it they do not marry; having been resurrected, they will become “equal to the angels” (36), because they will not marry for fear of death, but will pass into the angelic state through the endowment of incorruptibility, however, changing the resurrected substance. However, no one would ask whether we would marry and die again or not, if there were no doubt about the restoration of precisely that substance that, in fact, produces death and marriage, that is, the flesh. So, you have the Lord, who affirms against the Jewish heretics what is even now denied by the Christian Sadducees, that is, the resurrection of the whole man. 37. Therefore, if Scripture says: “The flesh does not profit” (John 6:63), then the meaning of these words must be connected with the reason for which they were spoken. And since the disciples considered the Lord’s words too harsh and unbearable, as if He really ordered them to eat His flesh, He (in order to confirm salvation in the spirit) said first: “The Spirit gives life” (ibid.), and then added: “The flesh does not profit,” that is, does not help life-giving. He then explains what He means by spirit: “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit, they are life” (ibid.). For the same purpose, He said: “Whoever hears My Word and believes in Him who sent Me has eternal life, and will not come into judgment, but will pass from death to life” (5:24). This means calling His Word the life-giver (for the Word is spirit and life). He called His flesh life-giving, for “the Word became flesh” (1:14). Therefore, it, as the source of life, should be sought, devoured by the ear, chewed by the mind and digested by faith. After all, He called His flesh “the bread of heaven” (6:51), through the image of daily food, constantly recalling the ancestors who preferred Egyptian bread and meat to the divine call 19. Therefore, in order to dispel the doubts of His listeners, He said: “The flesh does not profit.” But does this somehow deny the resurrection of the flesh? Can't there be something that is useless in itself, but receives benefit from something else? The Spirit is beneficial because it gives life. The flesh is of no use, for it is mortified. By this, to our benefit, He even better defined the purpose of both; Having shown what is beneficial and what is not, He at the same time explained what is useful to him, that is, the spirit - the flesh, the life-giver - the mortified. “For the time is coming,” He says, “when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live” (5:25). And what is dead but flesh? And what is the voice of God if not the Word? And what is the Word if not the Spirit? He is right in intending to resurrect the flesh (for He Himself became flesh), to resurrect from the death which He Himself suffered, and from the tomb in which He Himself was laid. Finally, when He says: “Do not be surprised, for the time will come when all who are in the tombs will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who have done good will come out to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of condemnation” (5:28-29), then by the dead who are in the tombs we must understand precisely the body and flesh, and by the tombs themselves - only the receptacles of corpses. After all, the old people themselves, that is, sinners, dead in ignorance of God (whom the heretics propose to consider as tombs), will emerge, as has been clearly announced, from the tombs for judgment. But how can the tombs come out of the tombs? 38. After everything that the Lord has said, how do we think we should understand His works if He raises the dead from their graves and tombs? What is all this for? If He simply wanted to demonstrate His power or mercy, necessary for life-giving, it was not difficult for Him to resurrect those who would die again. If this was really necessary to preserve faith in the future resurrection, then the resurrection itself, according to His teaching, must be represented as bodily. I do not intend to listen to those who assert that the resurrection is appointed only for the soul, and examples of bodily resurrection were revealed only because the resurrection of the invisible soul could not be shown except by reviving the visible substance. Those who know God poorly are those who are sure that He cannot do what they do not imagine. If they knew the book of John, they would not doubt that He always had power. The one who showed the disembodied “souls of the martyrs” resting “under the altar” (Rev. 6:9), He, undoubtedly, could also show the resurrected without bodies. I, however, prefer that God cannot deceive, that He is incapable of deceit, and that the proofs (documenta) He lays down do not appear to be other than what He has ordained; that is, if He could not show an example of the resurrection without the flesh, I prefer that He still less could show a complete example of the resurrection in this substance [flesh]. No example is greater than that of which it is an example. However, it will be greater if souls are resurrected together with bodies to prove the resurrection without bodies - for then the complete salvation of a person would serve as proof of a half salvation. Meanwhile, the property of the examples required rather less, that is, the resurrection of one soul, according to the example of which the flesh will be resurrected in due time. And therefore, as we believe, the examples revealed by the Lord of the resurrection of the dead proved, of course, the resurrection of both flesh and soul, so that not a single substance would be deprived of this gift. But these examples revealed something less [than that proclaimed by Christ], for the dead were raised not for glory and incorruption, but for another death. 39. And the apostolic writings testify to the resurrection that Christ performed. For the apostles had no other business, at least before Israel, than to open the seal of the Old Testament and impose the seal of the New, or rather to proclaim the Testament of God in Christ. Therefore, they did not add anything new about the resurrection, but only reported about it for the glory of Christ, and otherwise it was accepted by a simple and already known faith without any discussion of its properties, and only the Sadducees resisted it. This means that it was easier to completely deny the resurrection of the dead than to understand it differently. Here is Paul, who, before the high priests, at the tribune, among the Sadducees and Pharisees, preaches his faith: “Men, brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of the Pharisees, and now you are judging me for the hope of the resurrection” (Acts 23:6), - of course, for the common resurrection for all. [He said this] so that he would not be considered like-minded with the Sadducees in the main position of the whole faith, that is, the resurrection, for he had already turned out to be a lawbreaker. And since he did not want to be considered denying the belief in the resurrection, he affirmed it together with the Pharisees, rejecting its opponents, the Sadducees. Therefore, even before Agrippa he said that he “does not preach anything beyond what was proclaimed by the prophets” (cf. Acts 26:22), and, therefore, he preserved the doctrine of the resurrection as the prophets announced it. Having mentioned, among other things, that Moses also wrote about the resurrection of the dead, he knew that this was a bodily resurrection, during which human blood would be needed. This means that he preached such a resurrection, which the Pharisees accepted and the Lord Himself affirmed, but the Sadducees completely rejected, so as not to believe in anything like that. And the Athenians did not notice that Paul was preaching a different resurrection, which is why they “mocked him” (cf. 17:32). However, they would not have mocked if they had heard from him only about the resurrection of the soul, since they would have considered this the most common opinion of their own philosophy. But since the announcement of a previously unheard-of resurrection struck the pagans with its very novelty, and the distrust appropriate to the subject began to shake faith with doubt, the apostle tried to confirm faith in this hope in almost every epistle, pointing out that there is hope, but has not yet come true and (which was most objected to) refers to the bodily resurrection - but not in another body (which also had doubts). 40. However, it is not surprising that [the heretics] borrow evidence from his own epistles - “for there must also be heresies” (cf. 1 Cor. 11:19) - and they could not exist if Scripture could not be misunderstood. And so the heretics, having discovered that the apostle taught about two people: the internal, that is, the soul, and the external, that is, the flesh, awarded salvation to the soul, that is, to the internal man, and destruction to the flesh, that is, to the external, for in the Epistle to the Corinthians it is written: “Even if our external man is damaged, the internal man is renewed day by day” (2 Cor. 4:16). But neither the soul itself is a person (for it was only later placed in a creature called man), nor is flesh without a soul (for flesh after the departure of the soul is called a corpse). Therefore, the word “man” is like a bond of two connected substances and can only mean their connection. Further, by the inner man the apostle preferred to understand not so much the soul, but rather its “disposition” (mens) and its “spirit” (animus), that is, not the substance itself, but its “mood” (sapor). When he wrote to the Ephesians: “Christ dwells in the inner man” (cf. 3:16-17), he indicated, of course, that the Lord must be imprinted in the feelings, for he immediately added: “Through faith in your hearts and in love” (cf. 17-18). This means that he considers faith and love not an essential property (substantiva) of the soul, but an incidental one (conceptiva); but by saying “in the hearts,” he also related the inner man himself to the flesh, for he placed him in the heart, and the heart is an integral part of the substance of the flesh. Think now why the apostle said that the outer man is damaged, but the inner man is renewed day by day, and you will understand: we are not talking about the corruption of the flesh that it undergoes from the day of death in order to disappear forever, but rather about the damage that the flesh experiences throughout earthly life before death and until death itself from torture, oppression, torture and punishment for the Christian name. Of course, the inner man will also be renewed here, thriving day by day with the support of the spirit in faith and teaching. But it will not be there, that is, not after the resurrection, where we face a renewal that is by no means daily, but one-time and complete. Consider the words that follow: “For our present moment of short and light suffering brings to us an eternal fullness of glory beyond all measure, as we look not at the things that are seen (that is, the suffering) but at the things that are not seen (that is, the rewards); for the things that are seen are temporary, but the things that are unseen are eternal” (4:17-18). Thus the apostle affirms that sufferings and attacks from which the outer man is damaged must be despised as light and short-lived, and gives as an example the fullness of glory and invisible eternal rewards - the reward for labors from which the flesh is damaged here. And we are not talking at all about that corruption that destroys the flesh forever and which heretics (in order to reject the resurrection) attribute to the external man. For example, he says in another place: “If we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him, then, I think, the sufferings of this present time are nothing compared to the glory to come, which is to be revealed in us” (Rom. 8:17-18). And here he shows that adversity is less than its reward. If we have compassion for Christ in the flesh - and it tends to be damaged by suffering - then the reward promised for common suffering will also be destined for it. Therefore, the apostle, intending to attribute to the flesh the property of suffering (which he did above), says: “When we came to Macedonia, our flesh had no rest,” and then, to show the suffering of the soul, he adds: “in everything we were oppressed: from without - attacks (namely, disturbing the flesh), from within - fear (tormenting the soul)” (2 Cor. 7:5). Therefore, if the outer man is damaged, then we are not talking about the loss of resurrection, but about suffering, which occurs with the participation of the inner man. This means that both glorification and suffering will belong to both of them. Companions in labor must, of course, remain partners in rewards. 41. The apostle has the same thought in mind, putting reward above torment: “We,” he says, “know that if our earthly house, this hut, is destroyed, we have a house not made with hands, eternal, in heaven” (2 Cor. 5:1). This means that when our flesh is destroyed in suffering, we will receive a dwelling in heaven. At the same time, he alludes to the Gospel saying: “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:10). And, of course, he did not deny the restoration of the flesh if he referred to retribution with a reward, because retribution must relate to the same thing as destruction, that is, to the flesh. However, calling the flesh a “house,” he preferred to skillfully use this word when comparing it with reward, promising that “house” that would be destroyed by suffering a better “home” through resurrection. After all, the Lord also says that His Father has “many abodes and, as it were, houses” (cf. John 14:2), However, it can be considered that the apostle had in mind the abode of this world, with the destruction of which an eternal place in heaven is promised - for the words that follow, obviously referring to the flesh, show that the previous ones do not apply to it. The point is that the apostle makes a distinction when he adds: “Therefore we sigh, desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is in heaven, lest we, undressed 20, be found naked” (2 Cor. 5:2-3). This means that we desire to be clothed with the heavenly power of eternity before we part with the flesh. This mercy primarily concerns those who, at the coming of the Lord, will remain in their flesh and, due to the cruelty of the time of the Antichrist, will earn the shortest path to death (which will be accomplished through change) and will meet with the resurrected. This is exactly how the apostle writes to the Thessalonians: “For this we say to you according to the word of the Lord, that we who live and remain until the coming of the Lord will not forestall those who have fallen asleep; for the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout and the sound of the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first; then we will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord, and so we will always be with the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 4:15–17). 42. He speaks about this change in his Epistle to the Corinthians: “We will all be resurrected, but not everything will change suddenly, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet” (1 Cor. 15:51–52) 21; So, of course, only those who remain in the flesh will change: “The dead,” he says, “will rise, and we will be changed” (52). Having first considered this judgment, you will correlate everything else with the meaning of what was said above. Because when he adds: “For this corruptible must put on incorruptibility, and this mortal must put on immortality” (53), he means precisely that heavenly abode in which we wish to put on (of course, the pile of flesh in which, groaning, we find ourselves). That is, we, in his opinion, are burdened by this tent, which we do not want to remove, but only to cover, so that the mortal is swallowed up by life when it changes in this way, putting on the heavenly. For who, while in the flesh, would not want to be clothed with immortality and continue life, escaping death with the help of its vicegerent - change, in order to avoid the underworld, where everything to the last quadrant will be exacted? And whoever has already been to the underworld will undergo a change after the resurrection. We affirm that from now on the flesh will be resurrected in every way and will take on the appearance of an angel from the coming change. After all, if the flesh were to change only for those who abide in it (so that the mortal was swallowed up by life, that is, the flesh - by that eternal bodily vestment), then those who are found in death would not find life, because they no longer have matter and, so to speak, the food of life - flesh; or it is necessary that they again receive flesh, so that their mortals too may be swallowed up in life, if they are to gain life. “But among the dead,” you say, “this mortal is already consumed.” - But not everyone does. How many of yesterday's dead can be found, just buried, in which not a trace of absorption can be seen? You, of course, consider only that which is destroyed, only exterminated, that which has become inaccessible to every sense and has completely ceased to appear, to be absorbed. But let it be known to you that the bodies of the most ancient giants were not consumed, for their skeletons still exist. We have already said this elsewhere. But even recently, when in this city, while laying the foundation for the odeon 22, the most ancient tombs were sacrilegiously damaged, the people were in awe of the almost five-hundred-year-old bones, still wet, and hair that had not lost its smell. It is known that not only the bones are preserved intact, but also the teeth do not deteriorate, for they represent the seeds of the body that will grow from them in the resurrection. Finally, if [after the resurrection] it turned out that the mortal was swallowed up in all the dead, then by what: death, eternity, time, or perhaps life, endowment and the grant of immortality? Therefore, whoever claims that a mortal will be swallowed up by them, thereby denies that he will be swallowed up by death. But in any case, one must believe that this will happen and be fulfilled by Divine power, and not by the laws of nature. And since a mortal must be absorbed into life, it must, in any case, exist in order to be absorbed, and be absorbed in order to change. If you were to say that a fire must be lit, you would not be able to say that a means of ignition is needed in one place and not in another. So the apostle adds: “Lest we, being undressed, be found naked” (2 Cor. 5:3), meaning those who on the day of the Lord will be found neither in life nor in the flesh. He argued that those whom he called “undressed” are naked precisely in the sense that they are about to be re-clothed with the same substance of which they were deprived. For just as they find themselves naked, when their flesh is cast off, or partly torn and destroyed (and this is precisely what can be considered nakedness), so then they will take it back again, so that, having put on flesh, they can put on immortality on top of it. For it is not proper to put on an outer dress if the under one has not yet been put on. 43. Therefore, when the apostle says: “Therefore, we are always confident and know that while we are in the body, we are far from the Lord, for we walk by faith and not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:6-7), then it is clear that this does not refer to the humiliation of the flesh (as if it separates us from the Lord). Here he only admonishes us to turn away from this life, for we are far from the Lord while we live. We walk by faith and not by sight, that is, we walk by hope and not by possessions. Therefore he adds: “While we believe, we consider it a great good to depart from the body and remain with the Lord” (8), so that we may walk more by sight than by faith, and rather possess than hope. You see that here too he turns contempt for bodies to the superiority of martyrdom. After all, only he, having removed himself from the body, immediately remains with the Lord, who, by the merit of martyrdom, will be sent to heaven, and not to hell. Did the apostle really not have enough words to describe the exodus from the body, or is he talking about it in a new way? On the contrary, wanting to indicate the temporary loss of the body, he said that we are removed from Him, for the one who goes on a journey will return to his abode. After this, he says to everyone: “We strive to be pleasing to God, whether we are away from Him or with Him: for we must all appear at the judgment seat of Jesus Christ” (9-10). If to all, then whole, if whole, then both the internal and the external, that is, both souls and bodies, must appear: “So that,” he says, “everyone receives what he has done in the body and in accordance with what he has done, whether good or bad” (10). Now I ask how you read this passage, for the apostle seems to have obscured it by rearranging the words. What did he mean, “to be obtained through the body” or “perfected through the body”? But even if he meant “must be received through the body,” then, without a doubt, he is talking about a bodily resurrection. If “what is done through the body,” then everything must be compensated by the same body that was done. This means that all this reasoning of the apostle is revealed from the very beginning in the conclusion (where the resurrection of the flesh is shown) and it must be understood according to the conclusion. 44. If you also take into account the previous words, which speak of the outer and inner man, will you not find there both the dignity of the flesh and its full hope? For if the apostle says of “the light which God has kindled in our hearts to enlighten us with the knowledge of His Glory in the face of Christ” that “we have this treasure in earthen vessels” (2 Cor. 4:6-7), that is, in the flesh, will they be destroyed because they are made of earthenware, or rather will they be exalted because they contain the divine treasure? After all, if even this true light itself, which is present in the Face of Christ and contains life, is entrusted to the flesh, then should the flesh to which life is entrusted perish? It is clear that then the treasure itself is doomed to destruction, for the one doomed to destruction is entrusted only with exactly the same thing, just as new wine is entrusted to old wineskins. So the apostle adds: “We always bear in our body the mortification of Jesus Christ” (10). What kind of object is this, which, being called the “church of God,” can also be called the “coffin of Christ”? Why, in fact, do we carry the mortification of the Lord in our bodies? “So that,” he says, “life will open up. Where? In the body. Which one? In mortal" (11). Therefore, in the flesh - mortal, of course, because of guilt, but also capable of life due to grace. And look how great this grace is, that in it “the life of Christ is revealed” (ibid.). But is it possible that in that which is completely alien to salvation, in a substance subject to constant decay, the life of Christ will be revealed, eternal and imperishable life, that is, the life of God? And at what time will the life of the Lord be revealed in our body? Apparently, the one by which He lived before His Passion and which was known not only to the Jews, but has now been announced to all pagans. This means that the apostle had in mind that life that “crushed the iron gates of death and the brass bars of hell” (cf. Ps. 107:16), which from that time has already been our life. It is this that will manifest itself in the body. When? After death. How? When we are resurrected in a body like Christ. And so that no one may object that the life of Jesus is now about to be revealed in our body (thanks to the exercise of holiness, patience, justice and wisdom with which the life of the Lord was glorious), the apostle very prudently adds: “If we who live are given over to death for Jesus’ sake, let His life also be revealed in our mortal body” (2 Cor. 4:11). This means,” he says, “all this will happen in our body after death.” But if after death, then can this be without resurrection? Therefore, concluding his thought, he says: “We know that he who raised Jesus will also raise us together with Him” (14), for Jesus has already risen from the dead. "With Him" ​​no doubt means "as well as Him." And if “like Him,” then, of course, not without the flesh. 45. However, due to some kind of blindness, they again and again stumble upon words about two people, the old and the new: When the apostle exhorts “to put aside the old man, which is corrupting from corrupt desires, to be renewed in the spirit of the mind and to put on the new man, created according to God in justice and holiness of truth” (Eph. 4:22-24), they argue that here too the apostle, distinguishing two substances, refers oldness to the flesh, and newness to the soul; This means that constant corruption refers to the old substance, that is, to the flesh. But if we distinguish by substances, then the soul is not at all a new man because it appeared later, and the flesh is not at all an old man because it appeared earlier. For is there even a moment between the wave of God's Hand and His Breath? I, perhaps, will dare to assert: even if the flesh had been much earlier than the soul, He would still have given primacy to the soul, precisely because the flesh had to be filled with it. For every fulfillment and accomplishment takes precedence by virtue of its result, even if it was later in order. Greater primacy belongs to that which the first [in order] cannot do without. If the flesh is the old man, then from when? From the very beginning? But Adam was all new, and something new does not make something old. Indeed, from the time the blessing was given to birth (Gen. 1:28), flesh and soul appear together and simultaneously, for their seeds are simultaneously introduced into the womb, as we talked about this in the essay “On the Soul” (§ 27). At the same time their conception, at the same time their birth. These two people - and, of course, their substance is dual, but not their age - in fact they are one, for none of them is earlier. It is more correct to assume that we are entirely either old or new, because it is unknown how one can be both at the same time. However, the apostle clearly shows what the old man is: “Put off the old man according to your former way of life” (Eph. 4:22), and not because of the oldness of some substance. He commands us to put aside not the flesh, but the deeds that are elsewhere called “carnal” (cf. Gal.5:19), and it is not the bodies that he accuses, about which he immediately notes: “Abandoning lies, speak the truth, each one to his neighbor, because we share in one another. Be angry, but do not sin; let not the sun go down on your anger. And don't give room to the devil. Whoever stole, let him no longer steal, but rather let him work, working with his hands, so that he can give to those in need. Let no evil word come out of your mouth, but only such as is best for building up faith, so that it may bring grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all sorrow, anger, crying and slander be removed from you along with all malice. But be kind to one another, merciful, forgiving one another, just as the Lord forgave you in Christ” (Eph. 4:25–32). So why do those who consider the flesh to be the old man not hasten their death, so that, having put aside the old man, they may fulfill the apostle’s commandment? We, for our part, believe that all faith must be made in the flesh, and even more so through the flesh (to which belongs the mouth so as to utter the best words, and the tongue so as not to slander, and the heart so as not to be angry, and the hands to work and give), and therefore we affirm that the old and the new in a person are a moral difference, and not a substantial one. We equally recognize that the same person who was old in his former way of life is damaged, as it is said, “from perverted lust,” and he is still old in his former way of life, but not according to the flesh due to its constant destruction. Therefore, in the flesh he will be preserved the same, if he is deprived of a vicious lifestyle (and not physicality). 46. You will perhaps notice that the apostle everywhere condemns the works of the flesh as if he were condemning the flesh itself; but, taking care that no one thinks this, he receives the desired meaning with the help of other or partially related things of the flesh. For example, saying that “those who are in the flesh cannot be pleasing to God” (Rom. 8:8), he immediately turns from a false understanding to the true one, adding: “But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit” (9). In reality, of course, they are in the flesh; but the apostle, saying that they are not in the flesh, showed that they are not free from carnal deeds. That is, only those who cannot be pleasing to God are those who live carnally (and not because they are in the flesh), but those who, while being in the flesh, act according to the Spirit, are pleasing to God. And again he says: “The body is dead,” but because of sinfulness, just as “the spirit is life” (10) because of righteousness. Contrasting life with death placed in the flesh, he, no doubt, there promised life for righteousness, where he appointed death for sinfulness. But the opposition between life and death is in vain if there is no life where there is its opposite - death, from which, of course, the body should be freed. However, if life expels death from the body, it cannot do this without penetrating into the place where it is expelled. But why my confused reasoning, if the apostle says quite definitely: “If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He will also raise up your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you” (11). Therefore, if anyone considers the soul to be a mortal body, he is forced to admit (for he cannot deny that the flesh is also a mortal body) the same resurrection of the flesh due to its identical position with the soul. Understand from the following words that it is the works of the flesh that are condemned, and not the flesh itself: “Therefore, brothers, we are not debtors to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. If you live according to the flesh, you will die, but if you put to death in the Spirit the deeds of the flesh, you will live” (12-13). Further (in order for me to answer in order), if salvation is promised to those who are in the flesh, but lead a life according to the Spirit, then it is not the flesh that resists salvation, but the action of the flesh. And if the works of the flesh are eliminated as the cause of death, the flesh is saved and freed from the cause of death. “For the law,” says the apostle, “of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death” (2). Of course, this is the law that – as he said above – dwells “in our members” (cf. 7:23). This means that our members are no longer subject to the law of death, and therefore the law of sin, from which they are freed. Since the law, weakened by the flesh, was powerless, God sent His Son in the form of sinful flesh and for sin “condemned sin in the flesh” (8:3), but not the flesh for sin: for the house will not be condemned along with its inhabitant. And he said that “sin dwells in our body” (cf. 7:20). But since sin is condemned, the flesh is liberated; and if not condemned, then the flesh is subject to the law of death and sin. Therefore, even if he called the thoughts of the flesh “death” and then “enmity toward God” (8:6–7), this does not apply to the flesh itself. You, of course, will object: “To whom will the thoughts of the flesh belong if not to its substance itself?” - It would, of course, be correct if you proved that the flesh has thoughts from itself. But it does not exist without a soul; therefore, consider that the thoughts of the flesh should be attributed to the soul, although sometimes they are attributed to the flesh, for they are produced for the sake of the flesh and through the flesh. Precisely because, he says, sin dwells in the flesh, because the soul, from which sin arises, is the dweller of the flesh, and the flesh is mortified - not in the sense of existence, but in the sense of its [sinfulness]. For in another place he says: “How do you, as if living in the world, adhere to the institution?” (Col.2:20), - addressing not the dead, but those who had to leave worldly customs. 47. And worldly life, as he says, is the old man, “crucified with Christ” (cf. Rom. 6:6), and not physicality. If we understand this not literally, but in a moral sense, then it is not our physicality that was crucified, and our flesh did not endure the cross of Christ. That is, we must judge in accordance with the words of the apostle: “That the body of sin may be destroyed” (ibid.), - through the improvement of life, and not through the destruction of substance, - “so that (as he says) we will not serve sin from now on” (ibid.) and so that we thereby consider ourselves “to have died with Christ and believe that we will live with Him” (cf. 8). That’s why he says: “And you consider yourself dead” (11). For what? For the flesh? No, “for sin” (ibid.). This means that according to the flesh they will be saved, but “they are alive to God in Christ Jesus” (ibid.), alive, of course, by that flesh to which they did not die, for they are dead “to sin” and not to the flesh. Therefore, he also adds: “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, so that you should obey it and yield your members as instruments of the unrighteousness of sin. But present yourselves to God, as those who have been alive from the dead” (12–13), not as alive, but as those who have been alive from the dead, “and your members as instruments of righteousness” (13). And again: “Just as you gave your members as slaves to wickedness and to iniquity for the sake of iniquity, so now give your members as slaves to righteousness for the sake of holiness. For while you were slaves to sin, you were free from righteousness. What fruit did you have then from those deeds of which you are now ashamed? For their end is death. But now you have become free from sin. You have become servants of God and your fruit is in holiness, and the end is in eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (19-23). By citing a number of such considerations, he seeks to turn our members away from ungodliness and sin, to acquire them for righteousness and holiness, and to transfer them from the penalty of death to the gift of eternal life. Therefore, he promises a reward for salvation and the flesh, from which it would not be appropriate to demand holiness and righteousness if there were no reward for it. She should not have been baptized if, through this regeneration, she were not pre-elected to restoration, about which the apostle says this: “Do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Jesus were baptized into His death? This means that we are buried with Him through baptism into death, so that just as Christ was raised from the dead, so we too might walk in newness of life” (3-4). And lest you think that this is only about the life that should be lived in renewal of faith through baptism, he very prudently adds: “After all, if we were united to Christ in the likeness of death, we will also be united in the likeness of the resurrection” (5). For if in baptism we experience the likeness of death, then we are truly resurrected in the flesh, just as Christ was - “so that as sin reigned in death, so grace might reign through righteousness in eternal life through our Lord Jesus Christ” (5:21). Why is it said “so is grace” if it does not affect the flesh to the same extent? After all, where there is death, there is life after death, for life comes first where death comes later. If the kingdom of death achieves nothing other than the destruction of the flesh, then life, as the opposite of death, must also produce the opposite, that is, the restoration of the flesh. And just as death consumed the mortal with force, so, being swallowed up by immortality, she could hear: “Death, where is your sting? Death, where is your claim? (cf. 1 Cor. 15:55). For where “wickedness abounded, grace will abound” (cf. Rom. 5:20). Likewise, “strength will increase through weakness” (cf. 2 Corinthians 12:9 ), saving the lost, giving life to the dead, healing the damaged, healing the weakened, restoring the stolen, freeing the enslaved, calling the rejected, raising up the cast down - and from earth to heaven, where, as the Philippians learned from the Apostle, we “also have the right of inhabitants and from where we wait for our Savior, Jesus Christ, who will transform the body of our humiliation according to the body of His glory.” (3:20–21). This, without a doubt, will happen after the resurrection, for Christ Himself was not glorified before His Passion. And these will be our bodies, and the apostle conjures the Romans to present them as “a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God” (cf. Rom. 12:1). But why alive if our bodies must perish? Why a saint if they are wicked? Why please if they are cursed? Well, how will heretics who run from the light of Scripture understand the words written to the Thessalonians, one might think, like a ray of the sun itself - so they are clear: “But may the God of peace Himself sanctify you all to the fullest” (1 Thess. 5:23)? Is this not enough? But then it follows: “May your body, soul, and spirit be preserved whole and without blemish at the coming of the Lord” (ibid.). You see that the whole substance of man is destined for salvation, and not at any other time, but precisely at the coming of the Lord, which is the key of resurrection. 48. But, you say, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 15:50). We know this place and have deliberately postponed its consideration until now, so that everything placed by the enemies in the first row will be struck in the last battle - after we have repelled other issues, like auxiliary detachments. And here it is useful to think about the previous one, so that the meaning of this place is determined by its origin. I believe that the apostle, having explained to the Corinthians all the features of church discipline, finally presented to them the main conclusions (summa) of his Gospel and their faith in guaranteeing the death and resurrection of the Lord, in order to derive the rule of our hope from where it originated. So he continues: “If it is proclaimed about Christ that He rose from the dead, how then do some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If he does not exist, then Christ has not risen. And if Christ is not risen, our preaching is in vain and our faith is in vain. For we would be false witnesses about God, because we would testify that He raised Christ, although in fact He did not raise Him. After all, if the dead do not rise, then Christ has not risen. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain, for you are still in your sins, and those who rested in Christ have perished” (12-18). To what do you think he wanted to turn our faith with these words? “Towards the resurrection of the dead,” you say, “which was denied.” – Does he really want to convert faith to him using the example of the resurrection of the Lord? “Of course,” you answer. – Okay: is the example based on differences or similarities? “Of course,” you say, “based on similarities.” – But how did Christ rise? In the flesh or not? If, as you know, “according to the Scriptures, He died” (3) and “was buried” (4), not otherwise than in the flesh, then, without a doubt, you admit that He also rose again in the flesh. And that very thing that perished in death, that which lay in the tomb, was resurrected—not so much Christ in the flesh, but rather flesh in Christ. This means that if we are to be resurrected following the example of Christ, Who was resurrected in the flesh, then we will not follow this example if we ourselves are not resurrected in the flesh, for, as the Apostle says, “through man is death, and through man is resurrection” (21). This is said in order to separate the culprits of two actions: the culprit of death - Adam, the culprit of resurrection - Christ, and to affirm the resurrection for the same substance as death, equating both culprits in the name of man. After all, if “in Adam all die, but in Christ they all come to life” (22), then it is by the flesh that they will live in Christ, just as they die by the flesh in Adam, but “each in his own order” (23), for in his own body. And the order should be established in accordance with merit. But since merit is also attributed to the body, then an order must first be established for the bodies so that the order of merit becomes possible. If others are “baptized even for the dead” (29), then let’s see what the point is in this. At any rate, the apostle declares, they did this in the belief that vicarious baptism would benefit other flesh in the hope of the resurrection. If the resurrection were not bodily, it would not be found in bodily baptism. Why, asks the apostle, “are they themselves baptized, if baptized bodies are not resurrected?” (cf. 29). After all, the soul is sanctified not by washing, but by cleansing. “Why,” he asks, “are we exposed to disasters every hour?” (30). Of course, because of the flesh. “I die every day” (31), - it is clear, from the hardships of the flesh, in which he “struggled with the beasts in Ephesus” (32), that is, with the beasts of Asian oppression, which he mentions in the second letter to the Corinthians: “We do not want you, brothers, to be ignorant of our oppression in Asia, for we were burdened exceedingly and beyond our strength, so that we did not care to stay alive” (1:8). All this, if I am not mistaken, he listed so that the adversities of the flesh would not be considered empty and so that the resurrection of the flesh would be considered undoubted. For the tribulations of the flesh must be in vain if there is no resurrection for it. “But someone will say: How will the dead be raised? What body will they come in? (1 Cor. 15:35). Here he talks about the properties of bodies, about whether they will be the same or different. But since this question needs to be considered last, then since we are talking about the quality of bodies, the bodily resurrection should already be quite clear from here. 49. Here it really came down to flesh and blood - I mean, the whole issue. What substances and what properties the apostle deprived of the Kingdom of God can also be understood from the previous one. “The first man,” he says, “is from the earth, from dust,” that is, clay, Adam, and “the second man is from heaven” (1 Cor. 15:47), that is, the Word of God, Christ. But Christ, although he comes from heaven, is still a man precisely because He Himself is flesh and soul, or man, like Adam. And if He is called above “the last Adam” (45), then He acquired the right to this name by participating in its substance, for both Adam and Christ did not receive flesh from the seed. “Therefore, as is the earthly, so are those that are earthy; as is the heavenly, so are those who are in heaven” (48). But why are they such - by virtue of their substance or, first of all, due to the way of life, and then the dignity that they acquired through their way of life? However, “those of earth” and “heavenly” should by no means differ in substance, for the apostle equally called them people. After all, if Christ, the only truly heavenly, and even super-heavenly, is still a man, because he consists of flesh and soul, then in terms of the quality of these substances he is no different from the earthly. Therefore, people who are heavenly in His image [the apostle proposes to call] such not because of their present substance, but because of their future glory. For above, where this difference in dignity was established, it is said that “there is another glory of the heavenly, another of the earthly, another of the sun and another of the moon, another of the stars, for even a star differs from a star in glory” (40-41), but not in substance. Having thus spoken of the difference of dignity in one and the same substance (which now must be achieved, and then had to be achieved), the apostle adds an admonition that here we should become like Christ in the way of life, and there reach the pinnacle of glory: “As we have borne the image of earthly, so let us also bear the image of heavenly things” (49). After all, we bore the image of earthy as accomplices in crime, in death, in expulsion from paradise. But if here we bear the image of Adam in the flesh, then we are not at all encouraged by this to free ourselves from the flesh. And if not from the flesh, then from the way of life, so that we may bear within ourselves the image of heaven (but not yet the image of God, for we are not yet established in heaven) and walk here in the footsteps of Christ in holiness, righteousness and truth. All this, therefore, the apostle turns to a righteous way of life and says that here we must bear the image of Christ in our flesh and throughout this way of life. By saying “must wear” in an imperative sense, he means the present time, when no man has any other substance than flesh and soul. Even if our faith is directed to another substance, to the heavenly, then this substance is only promised to another, which is entrusted to work for it. This means that the apostle concludes the image of “early” and “heavenly” in a way of life, one of which must be rejected and the other imitated, and then continues: “I say this” (that is, in accordance with what I said above; therefore, a connection is formed here that complements the meaning of the previous one), “that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (50). And here he does not put into the words “flesh” and “blood” any other meaning than the image of the above-mentioned “earthly”. If this image is to be interpreted as an image of the “old life” (cf. Eph. 4:22), which does not receive the Kingdom of God, then flesh and blood, not receiving the Kingdom of God, are equated with the old life. Of course, if the apostle had never before used the names of substances to denote actions, then he should not have done so here either. But since he said about those who are still in the flesh that they are not in it (meaning the works of the flesh), there is no need to reject his usual way of expression, when he alienates from the Kingdom of God not the substance, but the works of it. For example, having explained to the Galatians what the works of the flesh are, the apostle declares: he “predicts and has previously predicted that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (5:19ff., 21) - because they do not bear in themselves the image of heaven, as they bore the image of the earthly. Because of this, due to their old way of life, they should be called flesh and blood. But even if the apostle had said that flesh and blood should be separated from the Kingdom of God, completely unexpectedly, without first explaining the meaning of these words, then even in this case we would have to understand by these two substances the old man, devoted to flesh and blood, namely food and drink, - that person who usually objects to the belief in the resurrection: “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we will die” (1 Cor. 15:32). And the apostle condemned flesh and blood precisely for their fruits - gluttony and drunkenness. 50. But even omitting such interpretations, which condemn the works of flesh and blood, it will be possible to defend these substances for the resurrection, understanding them in their own sense. After all, it is not the resurrection that is directly denied to flesh and blood, but the Kingdom of God, which is given to the resurrection (for resurrection also implies judgment); the general resurrection of the flesh is precisely confirmed by the fact that the partial is excluded. After all, when they declare in what state the resurrection does not occur, they thereby make it clear in what state it does occur. And since the distinction concerning resurrection affects only the works of the substance, and not its kind, it is also clear that flesh and blood are removed from the kingdom of God for guilt, and not for the property of the substance, and precisely because they will not be resurrected for the kingdom of God, they will be resurrected in their own form (forma) for judgment. Therefore, I would say again: “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God,” - of course, in their own strength and on their own, and therefore the apostle explained that for this they also need a spirit. For it is the spirit that “gives life” for the Kingdom of God, but “the flesh does not profit” (John 6:63). But something else can benefit her, that is, the spirit, and through the spirit the deeds of the spirit. In any case, all flesh and blood will be resurrected in its own nature. But those who are destined to enter the Kingdom of God will have to be clothed with the power of incorruptibility and immortality, without which they cannot enter the Kingdom of God - before they can get there. This means, as we said, it is correct that flesh and blood by themselves are not capable of achieving the Kingdom of God. Since “this corruptible,” that is, the flesh, “must be swallowed up with incorruption, and this mortal, that is, the blood, with immortality” (cf. 1 Cor. 15:53-54) through change after the resurrection, then in justice the changed and swallowed up flesh and blood can inherit the Kingdom of God; and this cannot happen without their resurrection. There are also those who by “flesh and blood” want to understand Judaism (in connection with circumcision), which is also alienated from the Kingdom of God, for it is considered old, and under this name the Apostle condemns it in other places. After “the Son of God was revealed to him, that he might preach him to the Gentiles, he did not consult flesh and blood” (cf. Gal. 1:16), that is, with circumcision, with Judaism, as he wrote to the Galatians. 51. But the words that we have saved for conclusion will answer for everyone, even for the apostle himself, who truly should have been convicted of great rashness if he (as some want to think) so suddenly, so to speak, without looking, finally and unconditionally removed all flesh and blood from the Kingdom of God, and from the heavenly palace itself. But there Jesus now sits at the right hand of the Father - a man, although God, the last Adam, although the original Word, flesh and blood, although purer than ours - but “the same” both in substance and in appearance “as he was ascended” (cf. Acts 1:11). Thus He will come again, according to the angels, so that He may be recognized by those who wounded Him. It is He who is called “Mediator between God and men” (1 Tim. 2:5), for He is entrusted with a pledge on both sides, and in Himself He keeps the pledge of the flesh as a deposit of the entire amount. Just as He “left us a pledge of the Spirit” (2 Cor. 5:5), so He took a pledge of the flesh from us and took it to heaven as a guarantee that the entire amount would one day be returned from there. Don't worry, flesh and blood: you have found both heaven and the Kingdom of God in Christ. And if those who denied heaven for you begin to deny you in Christ, then let them say that Christ is not in heaven. And the apostle said: “Corruption does not inherit incorruption” (1 Cor. 15:50) not so that you would consider flesh and blood to be corruption, for they are rather subject to corruption, precisely because of death; and death not only destroys flesh and blood, but actually destroys. And since the apostle said that the works of flesh and blood cannot gain the Kingdom of God, then, in order to especially highlight this thought, he takes away the inheritance of incorruption from corruption itself, that is, from death, to which the works of flesh and blood contribute. For a little later he described in some way the death of death itself: “Death is swallowed up in battle. Death, where is your sting? Death, where is your strength? But the edge of death is sin (this is what corruption will be), and the power of sin is the law” (1 Cor. 15:54-56), without a doubt, that other “law” which, according to the apostle, wars “in his members” against the law of his soul, that is, the very power that sins against the will (cf. Rom. 7:1 et seq.). After all, if above he says: “The last enemy to be destroyed is death” (1 Cor. 15:26), then this is precisely why “perishable things do not inherit incorruptible things” (50), in other words, death will not continue. But when and how will it be destroyed? When “suddenly, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet the dead will rise incorruptible” (52). Who are they if not those who were formerly corruptible, that is, bodies, or flesh and blood? “And we will change” (ibid.). From what state, if not from the one in which we will find ourselves? For “this corruptible must put on incorruptibility, and this mortal must put on immortality” (53). What is mortal if not flesh? What is glen if not blood? The apostle cares about you and tries to make sure that you relate what is said to the flesh; and lest you think that he is talking about something else, when he says: “this is perishable and this is mortal,” he seems to be pointing to his own skin. Indeed, he could only say “this” about something real and before his eyes. This word means something bodily. But perishable is something other than corruption, and mortal than mortality. For one experiences an effect, and the other produces it. This means that flesh and blood, which experience corruption and death, will with the same necessity experience incorruption and immortality. 52. Now let's see in what body, according to the apostle, the dead will return. And it’s good that he immediately took it upon himself to show it, as if someone had asked for it. “He who is foolish,” he says, “what you sow will not come to life unless he dies” (1 Cor. 15:36). Already from the example of the seed, it is clear that only the flesh that has died comes to life, and from this the following words will become clear. Then he says: “What you sow is by no means the future body” (37) - and shows that this should not be understood in contradiction with the meaning of the example, thinking that a different body will be resurrected than the one sown in death. Otherwise you didn't understand the example. For if wheat is sown and dissolved in the ground, barley never sprouts, but always the same kind of grain of the same nature, property and form. Where does it come from if it is not the same? After all, corruption is the same, because it relates to it. But the apostle explains what it means: “it is not the future body that is sown,” saying: “But the naked grain that happens, of wheat or some other kind. And God gives him the body as he wants” (37-38). Of course, we are talking about the grain that, according to him, is sown naked. “That’s right,” you agree. “This means that what God intends to give a body is saved.” But how can it be saved if it is nowhere to be found and if it is not the same thing that will be resurrected? If it is not resurrected, then it is not saved. And if he is not saved, then he cannot receive a body from God. But it is obvious that it was saved. Why then will God give him a body according to His desire (if he already has a body, naked), if not so that he will be resurrected no longer naked? This means that the body will receive something additional on top of this. And what the additive is added to is not destroyed, but increases. What increases, is preserved. After all, only grain is sown without a husk, without its own clothing, without an ear, without its foundation, without a spine, without its protection, without a stem, without its pride; and it grows up full and abundant, in a close community, in a harmonious arrangement, protected by its decoration and fully dressed. All this for him is another body from God, into which it turns not through destruction, but through increase. “And to each seed his own body” (15:38), but not his own, of course, in the sense that it is not the same, for now what is given by God in addition belongs to him. So, follow the example, keep it for the flesh, like a mirror, and believe: the same thing that is sown will bear fruit, it will return on its own - and more abundantly - and will not be different, although it will appear differently. After all, it is he who will receive the help and the decoration that God wishes to give him in accordance with his merits. No doubt this is what the apostle meant when he said: “Not all flesh is the same flesh” (39); he denies not the community of substance, but the equation of advantages, attributing to the body a difference of honor, and not of kind. Therefore, he adds more allegorical examples of animals and elements. “One is the flesh of man,” that is, the servant of God, truly a man, “the other is that of cattle,” that is, the pagan, about which the prophet says: “man is like the foolish cattle” (Ps. 49:21). “There is another flesh of birds” (1 Cor. 15:39), that is, of martyrs who strive for the highest, “and another of fishes,” that is, of those for whom the water of baptism is enough. He also uses examples with celestial bodies. “There is another glory of the sun,” that is, of Christ, “another of the moon,” that is, of the church, “another of the stars,” that is, of the seed of Abraham. “And star differs from star in glory, and there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies” (40–41), that is, Jews and Christians. But if this is not said allegorically, then, of course, it was in vain that he compared the flesh of mules and kites and the bodies of heavenly bodies with human flesh, for they are incomparable with it in their properties and do not receive resurrection. Finally, having made a distinction through these comparisons in glory and not in substance, he concludes: “So it is with the resurrection of the dead” (42). How? And here the difference is nothing other than glory. Therefore, again ascribing the resurrection to the same substance, and again mentioning the grain, he says: “The corruptible is sown, the incorruptible is raised, it is sown in destruction, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, raised in strength; the natural body is sown, the spiritual body is raised” (42-44). Undoubtedly, it is precisely what is sown that is raised, and it is precisely what is sown that decays in the earth, and it is the flesh that decays in the earth. For she was struck by the saying of the Lord: “The earth is, and into the earth you will go” (Gen. 3:19), - for it was from the earth that she was taken. Therefore, the apostle began to say “it is sown,” because it returns to the earth, and the earth is the best repository of seeds, in order to put them there and take them from there. Therefore, he certifies, as if putting a seal: “Thus it is written” (1 Cor. 15:45), so that you do not consider that something else is sown, and not what is said: “You go into the ground from where you were taken,” that is, nothing other than flesh. Because so it is written. 53. However, some argue that the soul is a spiritual body in order to remove the flesh from restoring the body. But since it is definitely and firmly established that it is the body that was sown that will be resurrected, then they should be asked to explain the essence of the matter. Or let them show that the soul is sown after death, a dead soul, that is, thrown into the ground, decomposed and decayed. But God did not establish anything like this. And then let them recognize her corruption, humiliation and weakness, in order to recognize her resurrection in incorruption, glory and power. Lazarus (this is the best example of resurrection) had weak flesh, almost rotten to the point of disgusting, and at the same time stinking from decay, and yet Lazarus was resurrected in the flesh and, moreover, with a soul. But his soul was incorruptible, and no one swaddled it with linen ribbons, no one put it in a coffin, especially no one felt the stench, and for four days no one saw that it was sown. The condition of Lazarus, his outcome, is still experienced by the flesh of every person, but not by the soul. It is clear that the apostle’s condemnation refers to the flesh, that it is about it that he speaks: the flesh is both the spiritual body when it is sown, and the spiritual body when it is resurrected. The Apostle reinforces you precisely in this interpretation and, based on the authority of the same Holy Scripture, reminds you that “the first man Adam was made a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). If Adam is the first man, and the flesh represented man before he was endowed with a soul, then, undoubtedly, the flesh acquired a soul. But at the same time, she still remained a body, and therefore became a spiritual body. What could they call the flesh, if not what it became thanks to the soul, what it was not without the soul, and what it will not be after its departure until it is resurrected? Having regained the soul, it will again become a soul body in order to become a spiritual body. For only that which existed is resurrected. So, just as it is fitting for the flesh to be called a spiritual body, it is in no way fitting for the soul. After all, the flesh was at first a simple body, and only then a spiritual one, which it became after being animated. The soul, although it is a body, is, rather, not animate, but animating. It cannot be called a soul body and become what it produces. Being an accessory property (ascidens) of another, it makes him spiritual. But, not being such a property [relative to itself], how will it make itself soulful? This means that just as previously simple flesh, receiving a soul, becomes a spiritual body, so later, clothed with spirit, it becomes spiritual. In establishing this order, the apostle shows it in Adam and in Christ, as examples of the difference. And when he calls Christ “the last Adam,” you can understand from this expression that he seeks to affirm the resurrection of the flesh, and not the soul. After all, if the first man, Adam, was flesh and not a soul, but then became a living soul, then the last Adam, Christ, was called Adam only because He was a man, and a man because he had flesh, but not because he had a soul. Accordingly, he adds: “Not the spiritual first, but the natural, and then the spiritual” (1 Cor. 15:46), as both Adams testify. Perhaps it seems to you that the natural body and the spiritual body differ in one and the same flesh, and the Apostle prepared this difference in both Adams, that is, in both people? But in what substance are Christ and Adam equal? In any case, according to the flesh, but we can also assume that according to the soul, although both are called man according to the flesh. Man was first flesh. Regarding the flesh, therefore, it was possible to establish an order so that one was considered the first and the other the last man, that is, Adam. For different things cannot be placed in a particular order if the difference relates to substance. This is possible, perhaps, only if the place, time or circumstances are different. Here “first” and “last” are said about the substance of the flesh, the first man is from the earth, and the second is from heaven; but even though in spirit He is from heaven, in the flesh He is still a man. This means that the order that unites both Adams relates to the flesh, and not to the soul, for the first man was “made a living soul, and the last,” in contrast to him, “a life-giving Spirit” (45). This will determine the difference between their flesh, for it is said about the flesh: “The spiritual is not first, but the natural, and then the spiritual.” Thus, the above words must be applied to the flesh that “the spiritual body is sown, but the spiritual body is raised,” for “the spiritual is not first, but the spiritual.” Likewise, the first Adam was made by the soul, the last Adam by the Spirit, but all this is said about man, and all about the flesh, once about man. What else can we say? Does not the flesh even now have the Spirit from faith? It remains to ask why it is said that the spiritual body is sown. It is clear that here too the flesh received the Spirit, but as a pledge, and the soul received not as a pledge, but completely. This means that it is precisely by the name of this fuller substance in which it is sown that the flesh is called spiritual, and the future substance is called spiritual due to the fullness of the Spirit in which it will be resurrected. Is it surprising if it is usually called by the name of the substance with which it is filled, rather than by the one with which it is merely sprinkled? 54. Quite often questions arise because of individual words or their combination. For example, the apostle has the following words: “So that what is mortal may be swallowed up in life” (2 Cor. 5:4). We are talking about the flesh, but absorption is hastily mistaken for its destruction. Meanwhile. It’s a common thing to say: we absorb grief or sadness – that is, we hide, hide, hold back inside us. After all, the apostle also wrote: “This mortal must be clothed with immortality” (1 Cor. 15:53), and thereby explains how mortal is absorbed into life: clothed with immortality, it is hidden, hidden and preserved inside, and is not at all dissolved or eliminated. “But then,” you say, “even death will remain when it is consumed.” – And here, pay attention to the meaning of the words used, and you will understand the meaning of the whole. After all, death is one thing, and mortal is another. This means that death will be swallowed up in one way, and mortal things in another. Death does not receive immortality, but mortal does. That is why it is written: “This mortal must put on immortality.” But how does it get immortality? When consumed by life. How is it absorbed into life? When accepted by her, he returns and is enclosed in her. And death is indeed consumed to the point of complete destruction, for it itself acts in the same way: “Death,” says Scripture, “has swallowed up with its power, and therefore death is swallowed up in battle (cf. Isa. 25:8; 1 Cor. 15:54). Death, where is your sting? Death, where is your strength? (1 Cor. 15:55). This means that life, this rival of death, in the struggle will absorb for salvation what previously in the struggle death swallowed up for destruction. 55. Although we, by defending the resurrection of the flesh, thereby prove that the same flesh in question will be resurrected, some questions and reasons for them still require special clarification, despite the fact that in part they have already been explained in other places. Therefore, we will analyze in more detail the meaning and meaning of change, for they often give rise to the assumption that other flesh is resurrected, as if to change means to completely perish and be deprived of the previous property. However, change must be distinguished from everything associated with death. Change is one thing, but death is another. Further, if the flesh changes so much that it completely perishes, it will no longer be different; having changed, it will perish if it itself is not preserved in the change and is not revealed at the resurrection. And just as it perishes if it is not resurrected, in the same way it perishes, being destroyed in change, even if it is resurrected. In the same way, she will not exist if she does not resurrect. And how absurd it is for her to be resurrected in order not to exist (for she could simply not be resurrected in order not to exist), because non-existence has already begun for her. There is no need to confuse completely different things - different in their action - change and death. One changes, the other destroys. And, therefore, just as what died did not change, so what changed did not perish. After all, to perish means to completely cease to be what it was, and to change means to exist differently. Further, if something exists differently, it can still remain the same. This means that what has not perished still has existence, for it has undergone not destruction, but change. Thus, any thing can change and yet remain itself. For example, a person in this century exists entirely as one substance, which, however, changes in a variety of ways: in appearance, stature, health, position, dignity and age, in accordance with aspirations, occupations, skills, abilities, location, laws and customs. At the same time, a person does not lose anything human and does not become so different that he ceases to be the same. Yes, he doesn’t even become different, something else just happens to him. The divine Scriptures (divina documenta) also testify to this type of change. Moses' hand changes, it becomes bloodless, like a dead one, white and cold, but after the return of warmth and color it again becomes the same flesh and blood. Then his face changes due to the unbearable radiance (Ex. 4:6–7; 34:30). But the one who was not visible was still Moses. So Stephen had already reached the heights of angels, but it was not other people’s knees that he bent under a hail of stones (Acts 7:60). The Lord, in solitude on the mountain, even changed His clothes with light, but retained the facial features that Peter recognized (Matthew 17:3-8). Moreover, Moses and Elijah, the one in the form of flesh not yet received, the other in real flesh not yet dead, showed that the same bodily form persists even in glory. Instructed by this example, Paul also said: “He will transform the body of our humiliation into conformity with the body of holy glory” (Phil. 3:21). If you claim that transformation and change mean the destruction of all substance, then Saul, having turned into “another man” (1 Sam. 10:6), lost his body? And Satan himself, when he is “transformed into an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14), loses his nature? Don't think. This means that with the onset of the resurrection it will be possible to change, transform, be transformed, preserving the substance. 56. And indeed, how absurd and truly unjust (and how unworthy of God all this is!) is for one substance to act, and another to receive a reward, and for one flesh, for example, to be tormented, and another to be crowned, or, conversely, for one to wallow in the mud, and the other to be condemned for it. Isn’t it better to once and for all deprive faith of the hope of resurrection than to mock the greatness and justice of God? Wouldn't it be better for Marcion to be resurrected instead of Valentine? For it is incredible that the mind, memory and conscience of the present man should be abolished by this new garment of immortality and incorruptibility. In this case, the benefits and fruits of the resurrection and the Divine Judgment will be in vain for both substances. If I do not remember that the reward belongs to me, then how will I “glorify” God? How can I sing to Him a “new song” (cf. Ps. 65:2; 70:8), not knowing that it is I who owe Him gratitude? Why do they always look at the change of the body, and not the soul, which takes precedence over the body in everything? What will it be like if that soul, which has gone through the entire circle of life in this flesh, in this same flesh came to know God, put on Christ and sowed hope for salvation, reaps its fruit in some other flesh? And the “reward” will be good for that flesh whose life will be wasted! And if the soul does not change, then there is no resurrection of the soul. For it would not have been believed that she would have been resurrected at all if she had not been resurrected differently. 57. And this is where the usual cunning trick comes from: if, they say, the same substance is reborn with its appearance, features and properties, then this also applies to other signs. This means they will rise up blind, lame, paralyzed, that is, in the same form in which they died. “What can you do now, even if you don’t want to accept the greatest mercy from God in such a state?” However, even now, recognizing the salvation of only the soul, do you not limit salvation to half a person? What is the use of believing in the resurrection if it is not complete? And if the flesh is restored from decay, then even more so it will be freed from injury. Less means more. Doesn't the mutilation or insensibility of any part of the body mean its death? If the death of the whole is abolished by the resurrection, what about the parts? If we are changed for glory, how much less will we become unharmed? Bodily injuries are something accidens, but health is a natural property: we are born with it. Even if the damage occurs in the mother’s womb, even then the person suffers. The natural state (genus) precedes any damage. As God gives life, so he gives it back. The way we receive life is the same way we receive it again. We pay our debt to nature, not to violence, by being reborn in the form in which we are born, and not in the way in which we suffer. If God does not raise people alive, then He does not raise the dead. For what dead man is whole, even if he dies unharmed? Which lifeless one is unharmed? What body is untouched if it perishes, becomes numb, pale, ossified and becomes a corpse? Who is weakest of all but the completely powerless? Who is more relaxed than completely motionless? Therefore, to raise a dead person is nothing more than to make him completely unharmed, so that he is not dead by that part of the body that was not resurrected in him. The power of God is able to renew what He has done. The Lord sufficiently testified to this His power and His mercy in Christ and showed that Christ is not only the resurrector of the flesh, but its true restorer. Therefore, the apostle says: “The dead will rise incorruptible” (1 Cor. 15:52). Therefore, unharmed - but before they had suffered from illnesses and from a long burial. When the apostle declared two things: “This corruptible must put on incorruptibility, and this mortal must put on immortality” (15:53), he did not repeat the same thought, but expressed a difference. Namely, he called immortality the destruction of death, and incorruption - deliverance from corruption, attributing the first to resurrection, and the second to restoration (1 Thess. 4:13-17; 5:23). I think that he also promised the Thessalonians a completely intact substance. Therefore, in the future there is no need to fear damage to bodies. The preserved or restored integrity cannot lose anything from the time that what was lost is returned to the body. By declaring that the flesh will again experience the same sufferings (if it is true that it will be resurrected in the same way), you are thoughtlessly defending nature against its Lord and impiously upholding law against grace, as if the Lord could not change or preserve nature without any law. Why do we read: “What is impossible with men is possible with God” (Matt. 19:26) and: “God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wisdom of the world” (1 Cor. 1:27)? I ask you: if you change your slave with freedom, are his flesh and soul, which previously experienced whips, chains and brands, doomed to endure the same thing only because they will remain the same? Don't think. On the contrary: he was granted the radiance of white robes, the shine of a golden ring, the name, tribe and banquet of his master 23. But leave to God this ability to transform our state (but not nature) through change, when suffering subsides and protection appears. So, although even after the resurrection the flesh retains the ability to suffer (as long as it remains the same, remains itself), it will lose this ability when the Lord releases it, so that in the future it cannot suffer. 58. “Everlasting joy,” says Isaiah, “is upon their heads” (35:10). Nothing is eternal except what is after the resurrection. “They have departed,” he continues, “from them sorrow, sorrow and sighing” (ibid.). That is why the angel says to John: “And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes” (Rev. 7:17), - of course, from those very eyes that had previously wept and could have wept further if the mercy of God had not dried up this entire stream of tears: “And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death” (21:4); This means that corruption will also cease, just as banished by incorruption as death by immortality. If grief, sadness and sighing, and death itself, come from ailments of the soul and flesh, then can they disappear otherwise than with the elimination of the causes, that is, the ailments of the flesh and soul? But where are the misfortunes with the Lord? Where are the cruel misfortunes under Christ? Where are the machinations of demons with the Holy Spirit, when the devil himself with his angels has already been “cast into fire” (cf. Rev. 20:10,15)? Where is the inevitability or what is called chance or fate? What punishment can those resurrected experience after forgiveness? What anger is there for those who are reconciled after mercy? What weakness - after gaining strength? What kind of weakness is there after salvation? Is it that the clothes and shoes of the children of Israel for forty years did not wear out or become dilapidated, that in their bodies the usual growth of nails and hair was retarded in accordance with the requirements of convenience and beauty, so that their excessive length would not cause harm (Deut. 8: 4; 29: 5; Neh. 9: 21); that the fire of Babylon did not damage either the tiara of the three brothers or the trousers (although they were not in use among the Jews) (Dan.3:27); that Jonah, swallowed by a sea monster, in whose belly the shipwrecked died, was cast out unharmed three days later (Jon. 2:1), that Enoch and Elijah (they have not yet risen, for they were not given over to death, but were caught up from it from the earth and therefore are already seeking eternity) learn that their flesh is not subject to any vice, any damage, all injustice and reproach ( Gen. 5:24; 2 Kings 2:11) - doesn’t this testify in favor of faith, which alone is capable of verifying such evidence of a future resurrection? According to the authority of the apostle, all these are “examples for us” (1 Cor. 10:6). And they were written down so that we would believe: the power of the Lord is stronger than any law of the body and the flesh, and He will certainly protect the body, since He protected even its clothes, even its shoes. 59. “But the future age,” you object, “is structured differently and belongs to eternity. This means that a non-eternal substance cannot be involved in another dispensation of that age.” - This is, of course, true if man exists for the sake of the future dispensation, and not the dispensation for the sake of man. But the apostle writes: “Either the world, or life, or death, or the future, or the present—all is yours” (1 Cor. 3:22), and he considers those to whom he addresses to be heirs of the future. Isaiah does not help you in any way when he says: “All flesh is grass” (40:6) - and also “All flesh will see the salvation of God” (5) - for here he distinguished the outcome, not the substance. Who does not allow two sentences in the court of God - salvation and punishment? “All flesh is grass,” that which is doomed to fire; and “all flesh shall see the salvation of God”—that which is ordained to salvation. I know about myself that I committed adultery in the same flesh in which I now strive for abstinence. For whoever carries deep sinfulness within himself is capable, of course, of mowing down this grass of ungodly flesh, retaining in himself only that flesh that is destined to “behold the salvation of God.” But since the same prophet in one place says that the Gentiles are nothing more than “dust or spittle” (cf. Is. 29:5; 40:15,17), and in another that they will “have hope” and faith in the Name and Hand of the Lord (cf. 42:4), will we really fall into error regarding the Gentiles? And is it because of the difference of substance that some will believe and others should be considered dust? After all, Christ also shone to the pagans as the true light on this side of the ocean and from that sky that is above us all. Even the Valentinians learned their mistakes on this earth; for the believing nations have the same appearance as the unbelieving ones - according to the flesh, according to the soul. Therefore, just as the prophet distinguished the same tribes not by gender, but by fate, so he divided the flesh (which among the pagans themselves is the same in substance) not by matter, but by reward. 60. But now, in order to further raise their voice against the flesh (especially against its identity), they cite as an example the duties of various parts of the body, arguing that these parts must remain with their labors and fruits (for they belong to the same body) or, since it is clear that these duties will cease, the corporeality itself will be destroyed. Therefore, one should not believe in the preservation of the body without its parts, and these parts themselves cannot be imagined without their duties. What, they ask, is this cave of the mouth, the rows of teeth and the abyss of the pharynx, the receptacle of the stomach, the abyss of the womb and the long plexus of intestines, when there is no place for food and drink? Why would these body parts be received, chewed, swallowed, decomposed, digested and expelled? Why, for example, arms and legs, and all their movable joints, when the very concern for food ceases? What is the purpose of the kidneys that produce semen, and other reproductive parts of both sexes and the storage of embryos, breasts with their sources, when intercourse, generation and feeding cease? Finally, what is the use of the whole body if it is not occupied with anything? It is on this occasion that we noted earlier that we should not equate the future with the present dispensation, for then a change will come. Teier, we will add that the duties of the parts of the body serve the needs of this life until life itself passes from a temporary state to an eternal one, the spiritual body becomes spiritual, the mortal is clothed with immortality and the corruptible with incorruptibility. And when, finally, life itself is freed from needs, then parts of the body are freed from responsibilities. However, this will not make them unnecessary: ​​although they will be freed from duties, they will be preserved for judgment - “so that everyone through the body may receive according to what he did in it” (2 Cor. 5:10). For the whole man is called to the judgment of God, and he cannot be whole without parts, of the substances (and not duties) of which he consists. Maybe you will argue that the ship is intact without a keel, bow, stern, without all the fastenings being in good working order? And yet we have seen more than once that a ship, broken by a storm or corroded by rot, returns to its former state and is even proud of its rebirth after all its parts have been collected and restored. So should we worry about God's art, desire and right? Further, if a rich and generous owner of a ship, for the sake of his whim or fame, wanted to restore the ship so that it would no longer work, would you really deny the need for all the previous joints of the ship, because it will not float and you can simply preserve it without using it? Therefore, from here it is already quite clear: the Lord, having determined man for salvation, also determined the flesh for him, desiring that it would again exist in its former form. And it’s not your place to insist that it cannot exist again, since there will be no need for body parts. A thing may well exist again and at the same time not have duties: after all, it cannot be said that it is free from them if it does not exist. And if it exists, then, probably, not without benefit: for with God nothing is wasted uselessly. 61. “You, O man, have received mouths for eating and drinking.” - But maybe they are more likely for conversation, so that you differ from other living beings? Maybe it’s better to glorify God with them, so that you stand out among people? After all, Adam gave names to the animals before he picked the fruit from the tree, before he prophesied before he ate. - “But you got teeth to chew meat.” “Or maybe it’s more to frame your mouth when it’s open?” Maybe they are better suited to moderate the movements of the tongue and emphasize parts of speech? Listen to the toothless people and try to understand the purpose of the mouth and the structure of the teeth. “Men and women have holes in the lower part of their bodies, so that lusts can find an outlet through them, of course.” – But maybe they are more useful for displaying outflows? “Besides, women have a place inside where semen collects.” - Or maybe excess blood comes out through it, which this more sluggish sex is not able to disperse? We have to talk about such things, because people, who are striving with all their zeal to discredit the resurrection, scold it as they please, citing examples of parts of the body in ridicule - whatever and whatever they want. They do not think that first the very reasons for need will disappear: for food - hunger, for drinking - thirst, for cohabitation - the production of offspring, for labor - vital needs. For with the abolition of death, there will be no need for means to support life, and the need for procreation will not burden the members. But even in our times it can happen that the insides and reproductive parts are inactive. Moses and Elijah fasted for forty days and were strengthened only by God (Ex. 24:18; 1 Kings 19:8). Even then it was proclaimed: “Man does not live by bread alone, but by the word of God” (Deut. 8:3; Matt. 4:4; Luke 4:4). This is the image of future virtue. And we, as far as we are able, deny food to our lips and reject our desires for cohabitation. How many voluntary eunuchs are there among us? How many virgin wives of Christ are there? How many are infertile of both sexes, endowed with impotent reproductive parts? This means that even here the parts of the body are useless, their duties and fruits are temporarily absent, because... and their dispensation is temporary; however, this does not make a person less whole. For when he is saved, then - in the eternal dispensation - we will all the more not desire what we have already learned here not to desire. 62. However, the Lord’s saying puts an end to this debate: “They will be,” He says, “like angels” (Matthew 22:30). If they do not need to marry (for they will not be subject to death), then, of course, they will not have the corresponding need for bodily existence. It happened, however, that angels also became like people: they ate, drank and stretched out their feet to be washed (Gen. 18:4-8). Of course, having taken on human form, they retained their inner essence. This means that if angels, having become like people and performing bodily actions, were in the substance of the spirit, why can’t people, having become like angels, accept a spiritual disposition while being in the same substance of the flesh? Having assumed angelic form, they will not depend on the customs of the flesh any more than angels in human form depended on the customs of the spirit. They will not lose their flesh at all because they will be free from its usual needs, just as the angels did not cease to be in the spirit, having renounced the customs of the spirit. Therefore, He did not say: “they will be angels” (so as not to deny that they are people), but: “like angels” (so as to leave them as people). He did not abolish the essence to which he attributed the resemblance. 63. This means that the flesh will be resurrected, and all flesh will be resurrected, both the same and not at all damaged. It is preserved everywhere by God with the help of the most faithful “Mediator between God and people - Jesus Christ” (1 Tim. 2:5), Who will return God to man, man to God, spirit to flesh, and flesh to spirit. For He has already concluded an alliance between them in His Person, has already prepared the bride for the groom and the groom for the bride. But even if someone claims that the bride is the soul, then the flesh will still follow her, at least as a dowry. The soul is not a harlot for the bridegroom to receive her naked. She has outfits and her own jewelry - flesh that accompanies her like a foster sister. But the true bride is flesh, which in Christ Jesus through His blood has found her bridegroom in the Spirit. You probably think this is death; know that this is just leaving. After all, not only the soul is removed: the flesh also has its temporary refuges - in water, in fire, in birds and animals. It seems that it is transformed into them, but it seems to overflow into other vessels. And if the vessels themselves are not enough, she, having overflowed from them into her mother earth, as if in a roundabout way, is absorbed by her, so that Adam will again emerge from her, who will hear from the Lord: “Behold, Adam has become like one of us” (Gen. 3:22). Then she will truly know the evil she escaped and the good she gained. Why, soul, do you hate the flesh? You have no one closer to her; you must love her most of all after the Lord. This is your closest sister, who is born together with you in God. Rather, you should beg for her resurrection, because she sinned with your help. However, it is not surprising if you hate it, for you have rejected even its Creator and are accustomed to denying or changing it even in Christ. By this you dishonor the very Word of God, which became flesh - you distort it with the pen or a false interpretation, and besides, you resort to the secrets of the apocrypha, to these ungodly fables 24. But the Almighty Lord, resisting the wiles of unbelief and wickedness, in His providential mercy, “poured out His Spirit in the last days on all flesh, on His male and female servants” (cf. Joel.2:28–29; Acts 2:17-18), revived the tempted faith in the resurrection of the flesh and cleansed the ancient scriptures from all ambiguity and darkness with the clear light of words and thoughts. Therefore, “there had to be heresies, so that the faithful might be revealed” (cf. 1 Cor. 11:19). And heresies would not have dared to come forward if they had not found some pretexts in Scripture. Therefore, it seems that the ancient books gave them some material, which, however, can be refuted by the same books. But it was fitting to reveal the Holy Spirit, so that He would shine abundantly in all these sayings, and they would not only not add new sprouts to heretical tricks, but also destroy their old roots. Therefore, the Lord eliminated all previous ambiguities, all arbitrary parables by open and clear preaching of the entire sacred sacrament in a new prophecy flowing from the Paraclete. If you draw from His sources, you will no longer be able to thirst for any new teaching and the heat of questions will not burn you: constantly absorbing the life-giving hope of the resurrection of the flesh, you will find relief. Tertullian retells the well-known opinions of ancient philosophers. Seneca’s phrase from his tragedy “The Trojan Women” (395). We are talking about the Pythagorean-Platonic theory of the transmigration of souls. Pythagoras believed that his soul once resided in the hero of the Iliad, Euphorbes (see Diogenes Laertius VIII 4–5, 45). Apparently, a common example of the transmigration of souls was the posthumous transformation of Homer into a peacock (which was considered the bird of Hera - see Ovid. Metamorphoses I 722 et seq.). In Rome, this version acquired a national flavor: it was believed that the soul of the Roman poet Ennius (d. c. 169 BC) lived in Homer and the peacock - see Horace. Epistles II 1, 50–52. This refers to the first books of the treatise “Against Marcion” and the treatise “On the Flesh of Christ”. Lucan is a Marcionite (see Pseudo-Tertullian. Against heresies 18). Tertullian's not-so-subtle pun has the following meaning: Lucania (a mountainous region in southern Italy) abounded in bears, and Varro (On ​​Latin V 100) even claimed that the word “bear” (ursus) was of Lucanian origin. This refers to the treatise “On the Soul”. Menander is a Gnostic, a native of Samaria, presumably a student of Simon the Magus (see Irenaeus. Against heresies I 23.5). Mark is a Gnostic, a disciple of Valentinus (Irenaeus. Against heresies I 13). Clariores. Reading a number of other manuscripts are duriores (“rather rude” or “rather impudent”). This refers to the statue of Olympian Zeus by Phidias. This masterpiece of the famous sculptor (made in the mid-5th century BC) has not survived. From the detailed account of Pausanias (VII) it is known that Phidias used ivory liberally to convey exposed parts of the body. Most likely, Tertullian has in mind the views of Epicurus or the Stoics. Error or intentional substitution of meaning: the psalm (91:13) does not speak of a phoenix, but of a palm tree; both are denoted by the same Greek word φοίνιξ. The passage represents an interesting example of the adaptation of old ancient myths (see, for example, Ovid. Metamorphoses XV 393 et ​​seq.) for the purposes of Christian teaching. "Leading Start." In the Stoic doctrine - the focus of the highest potentials of man, the rational principle. Representatives of despised occupations are listed. Tribada is a lesbian. The priests of Cybele castrated themselves. The high priests of the Jews (see Luke 3:2). Figellus and Hermogenes - disciples of St. Paul, who abandoned him (see 2 Tim. 1:15). A curious example of allegorical interpretation based on a misunderstanding. In the Septuagint it is not Ιμάτια (“clothing”), but Ιάματα (“recovery,” “healing”). Tertullian either misread the word or used a damaged text. Deut.32:39. Tertullian mistakenly attributes words from Deuteronomy to Isaiah. The source could not be determined. Tertullian implies the unwillingness of the Israelites to follow Moses (see John 6:31,49,58). Exuti (“undressed”) instead of vestiti (“clothed”) in the Vulgate; Apparently, Tertullian read εκδυσάμενοι instead of ενδυσάμενοι. The text is corrupted. Restored in meaning. We are apparently talking about Carthage. The Odeon is an indoor theater for musical performances. The rights of a freedman are listed here. In particular, he received the lord’s family name and was assigned to his tribe - the territorial district (the main condition for possessing civil rights); the right to wear a gold ring was originally a privilege of officials and senators (jus anuli aurei), but during the imperial era it could also be worn by freedmen. Apocrypha are works not included in the biblical canon. It is possible that Tertullian specifically dealt with this issue for the purpose of polemics with Marcion, who proposed his own version of the composition of the New Testament.