Беседа 41

Against heretics who claim that another body will rise. – We should not mourn the dead unnecessarily, but help them with prayers and good deeds. 1 Corinthians 15:35–36. But someone will say: how will the dead be raised? and in what body will they come? Reckless! what you sow will not come to life unless it dies. 1. Being always very meek and humble, the apostle here speaks very strictly because of the stubbornness of his opponents - and is not content with this, but presents evidence and examples in order to thus tame even the most stubborn disputants. Above he said: “as death is through man, so through man is the resurrection of the dead” (1 Cor. 15:21); and here refutes the objection presented by the pagans. However, look how he again softens the power of reproach. He didn’t say: but maybe you will say, but vaguely points to the objector, so as not to shock the listeners too much with a direct, sharp instruction. He cites two perplexities: regarding the image of the resurrection and regarding the quality of bodies, because those who objected doubted both and said: how will the destroyed be resurrected, and in what body will they appear? What does it mean: “in what body”? That is, in this decayed, destroyed one, or in some other one? Then, suggesting that they are not asking about anything doubtful, but about what is reliably known, he immediately turns to them with stern words and says: “You fool! what you sow will not come to life unless it dies.” This is what we usually do with those who contradict something reliably known. Why doesn’t he immediately point to the power of God? Because he reasons with unbelievers. When he speaks to believers, he does not really resort to conclusions; so in another place, saying: “Who will transform our lowly body so that it will be like His glorious body,” and, having revealed here something more than the resurrection, he did not give comparisons, but instead of any proof, pointed directly to the power of God, adding the following: “by the power by which He works and puts all things in subjection to Himself” (Phil. 3:21). Here he also uses inferences. Having proved the truth by the words of the Scriptures, he now powerfully directs his speech against those who do not believe the Scriptures and says: “You fool! what you sow”, i.e. Do you yourself have proof of the resurrection in what you do daily, and do you still doubt? I call you crazy because you do not know what you yourself do every day and, while you yourself are the author of the resurrection (of the seeds), you doubt it in relation to God. He says very expressively: “what you sow”, i.e. you, mortal and decaying. And look how his very expressions correspond to the real subject: “he will not come to life unless he dies.” Without using expressions related to seeds, such as: vegetates, grows, rots, decays, he cites those corresponding to our flesh: “he will not come to life unless he dies,” which is not characteristic of seeds, but of bodies. And he did not say: he will live after he dies; but, which expresses more, he will come to life because he will die. Do you see that, as I have often noticed, he always deduces the opposite? From what others have drawn a conclusion against the resurrection, he turns the same thing into proof of the resurrection. They said that the body would not be resurrected because it had died. What does he say in spite of this? If it had not died, it would not have been resurrected, because it will be resurrected because it will die. So Christ shows the same thing most clearly when he says: “Unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if he dies, he will bear much fruit” (John 12:24). From here Paul, borrowing this comparison, did not say: he will not live, but: “he will not live,” again indicating the power of God and suggesting that it is not earthly nature, but God himself (God) himself who does everything. Why didn’t he point out what was closer to the subject, i.e. on the seed of man - just as our birth, like wheat, begins with corruption? Because (both examples) are not equal, but the first one is more important. The apostle wants to point out something that is completely decaying, and the seed of man is only a part (of man); That’s why he points (to wheat). On the other hand, the seed of man comes from a living man and falls into a living womb; but here the seed is thrown not into the body, but into the ground, and in it it decays like a dead body. Thus the example given is more directly relevant. “And when you sow, you do not sow the body that is to come” (1 Cor. 15:37). What has been said so far relates to how (the dead) will be resurrected; and this leads to bewilderment in what body they will appear. What does it mean: “not the body of the future”? Not a whole ear and not new wheat. Here we are no longer talking about the reality of the resurrection, but about the image of the resurrection, i.e. what will the body be like when it is to be resurrected - will it be the same as before, or better and more excellent? The apostle draws both from the same example and proves that they will be better. 2. The heretics, not understanding any of this, object and say: another body dies and another body will rise again. But what kind of resurrection is this? After all, the uprising (resurrection) refers to what has fallen. And where is that wonderful and glorious victory over death, if one falls and the other rises? Then it will no longer be obvious that she returned what she held captive. How does this comparison apply to the subject? It is not another being that is sown, but another that grows, but the same thing that grows in its best form. Otherwise, Christ, who was the firstfruits of those who rise again, was not resurrected in the same body, but, according to you, He left one body, although it was without any sin, and received another. Where did He get the other one? This is from Virgo, and where is this from? Do you see what absurdities such an opinion leads to? Why did He also show the nail wounds? Is it not to prove that this same (body) was nailed to the cross and that it was resurrected? And what does the type of Jonah mean? Without a doubt, it was not another Jonah who was swallowed up, but another who was cast out to the earth. And also, why did (Christ) say: “Destroy this church, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19)? He, of course, erected the very church that was destroyed; That’s why the evangelist added: “And He spoke of the church of His body” (John 2:21). So, what do the words mean: “you do not sow the future body”? Those. not an ear, because it is the same and not the same: the same because it is of the same being with (the seed); not the same because it is better; the creature remained the same, but greater splendor appeared, and He arose in a new form. And if it were not so, then there would be no need for resurrection, if the body could not rise better; Why destroy a house if not build it better? This (the apostle) said against those who think that (the body) is decaying. And then, so that no one thinks that another body will come from here, he resolves the confusion and himself explains what was said, not allowing the listener to draw any incongruous conclusion. What then are our words for? Listen to how he himself speaks and explains what it means: “you do not sow the future body”; He immediately adds: “and the naked grain, which happens, is wheat or something else.” “Not the body of the future”, i.e. not so clothed, not having stalks and ears, “but bare grain, such as it happens, wheat or something else; but God gives him the body as he pleases” (1 Cor. 15:37–38). So, you say; but nature is at work here. What, tell me, is nature? And here everything is done by God, and not nature, not the earth and not the rain. That is why (the apostle), without mentioning either the earth, or the rain, or the air, or the sun, or the hands of the farmer, says: “but God gives him the body as he wants.” Do not investigate and do not inquire how and in what way when you hear that this is a matter of the power and will of God. “And to every seed there is a body.” Where is someone else's body? Gives his own. Therefore, when (the apostle) says: “It is not the body that is to be sown,” he is not saying that instead of one another being will be resurrected, but that he will be resurrected in a better, more glorious form. “And to every seed there is a body.” From here he finally deduces the difference (of bodies) at the future resurrection. From the fact that wheat is sown and all the ears come from it, do not conclude that even at the resurrection (the bodies) will be equal in honor. Even the seeds produce (ears of) different quality, but some are better, others are worse. That is why (the apostle) adds: “and to each seed his own body.” However, not content with this, he expresses another difference, larger and clearer. So that, as I said, when you heard that everyone will be resurrected, you would not think that everyone would receive the same honor, he sowed the seeds of his thought even earlier, saying: “each in his own order” (1 Cor. 15:23). He expresses the same thing even more clearly here, continuing like this: “not all flesh is the same flesh” (1 Cor. 15:39). What am I pointing to, he says, to the seeds? We can see the same thing on the bodies that we are now talking about. That’s why he continues: “But men have another flesh, cattle have another flesh, fish have another, and birds have another. There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies; but the glory of those in heaven is one, and that of the earth is another. There is another glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, another of the stars; and star differs from star in glory” (1 Cor. 15:39–41). 3. Why are these words here? Why did (the apostle) turn away from the resurrection of bodies to talk about the stars and the sun? He did not evade or retreat from the subject - no - but still continues to talk about it. Having proved the truth of the resurrection, he now proves that there will then be a great difference in glory, although there is one resurrection, and divides everything into two parts - into heavenly bodies and earthly ones. By the example of wheat he proved that bodies will be resurrected; and here he proves that they will not all be in the same glory. Just as disbelief in the resurrection makes people sleepy, so the idea that everyone will receive the same fate makes them careless. Therefore he corrects both; I spoke about the first above, but I’m starting to talk about the latter now. Having divided everyone into two categories, into righteous and sinners, he then divides these two categories into many parts, showing that the righteous and sinners will not receive the same fate, also that neither the righteous will all be equal to the righteous, nor sinners to sinners. He makes the first division - into righteous and sinners - in the words: heavenly body and earthly body, meaning by earthly the latter, and by heavenly the first. Then he shows the difference between the sinners themselves in the words: “not all flesh is the same flesh; but there is another flesh for men, another for cattle, another for fish, another for birds”; although they are all bodies, some are more, others less unimportant, both in the way of life and in the structure itself. Having said this, he again turns to heaven and says: “there is another glory of those in heaven, another of those on earth.” Just as there is a difference in earthly bodies, so in celestial ones, and the difference is not small, but extends even to the last (stars); there is a difference not only between the sun and the moon, between the moon and the stars, but also between the stars themselves; although they are all in heaven, some have more glory, others less. What do we learn from here? Because, although all the righteous will be in the kingdom (of heaven), not everyone will receive the same bliss; and sinners, although they will all be in Gehenna, will not all suffer equally. That’s why he adds: “so also at the resurrection of the dead” (1 Cor. 15:42). What is “so”? There will be just as great a difference. Further, leaving this subject as sufficiently proven, he again turns to the proof and to the image of the resurrection itself and says: “it is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.” And look at his wisdom: about seeds he uses expressions appropriate to bodies: “he will not come to life unless he dies”; and about bodies he uses expressions appropriate to seeds: “it is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.” He did not say: it grows, so that you would not attribute this to the action of the earth, but: “it rises.” Here he calls sowing not our conception in the womb, but the burial of dead bodies in the ground, destruction, dust. Therefore, having said: “it is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption,” he continues: “it is sown in humiliation” (1 Cor. 15:43), since what is uglier than a dead, destroyed (body)? “Rises in glory; sown in weakness." Not even thirty days pass before everything is destroyed; the flesh cannot support itself and continue even for a day. "Rises in Strength". Then nothing will overcome it. This is why the examples given were needed, so that many, hearing that bodies will rise in incorruption, glory and power, would not think that there would be no difference between those resurrected. Although all will be resurrected in power and incorruption and in the glory of incorruption, not all in the same honor and degree. “The spiritual body is sown, the spiritual body is raised. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body” (1 Cor. 15:44). What are you saying? Isn’t this body spiritual? It is spiritual, but it is much more. Now the great grace of the Holy Spirit often flies away when someone falls into grave sins, and then, as the Spirit abides in the soul, the life of the flesh (flies away) - and without the first, the latter is insignificant - but then it will not be so, but on the contrary (the Spirit) will continually abide in the flesh of the righteous and will begin to dominate in it, although the soul will be present. Thus (the apostle) meant something similar when he said: spiritual, or that it will be lighter, thinner, and will be able to be carried even through the air, or better, both. If you do not believe what has been said, then look at the heavenly bodies, so bright, unchanging and never aging, and believe that God can make corruptible bodies incorruptible and much better than visible ones. “Thus it is written: The first man Adam became a living soul; and the last Adam is the life-giving spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45). The first is really written (Gen. 2:7), but the last is not written: how did (the apostle) say: “So it is written”? He inferred it from events, as he often does. This is what prophets usually do; for example, the prophet said that “Jerusalem will be called the true city” (Zechariah 8:3), but it was not called that. So what? Did the prophet tell a lie? No, he says, drawing a conclusion from events. Also: Christ will be called Immanuel (Is. 7:14), and yet He was not called that; but works give Him this name. So it is here: “and the last Adam is a life-giving spirit.” 4. (The Apostle) said this so that you would know that there are already signs and guarantees of both the present and future life: Adam for the present, and Christ for the future. Since he supplies the best (goods) in hopes, he now proves that their beginning has already come, that their root and source have already appeared. If the root and source are obvious to everyone, then there should be no doubt about the fruits. That is why he says: “the last Adam is life-giving in the spirit”; and in another place: “He will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.” (Rom.8:11). Therefore, to give life is the work of the Spirit. Then, lest anyone say: why was the worst first, and why was everything spiritual fulfilled, and not only in the firstfruits, but the spiritual only in the firstfruits, (the apostle) expresses that this is the order of both. “But not first,” he says, “the spiritual, but the natural, then the spiritual” (1 Cor. 15:46). He does not say why, but is content with indicating the order of God, having the experience of events as a witness to the superiority of God’s economy and through this proving that everything happens to us for the better, and at the same time gives even more credibility to his words. If the worst has come true, then all the more reason to expect the best. So, if such blessings await us, then let us try to place ourselves in that category (of the righteous) and we will mourn not those who die, but those who end their lives in evil. The farmer, when he sees the wheat being destroyed, does not cry; on the contrary, when he sees that it remains solid in the ground, he fears and trembles; and when he sees it being destroyed, then he rejoices, because destruction is the beginning of a future sprout. So we too will rejoice when a perishable house falls apart, when a person is sown. Do not be surprised that (the apostle) called burial sowing; this is the best sowing. This (sowing) is followed by deaths, labors, dangers, worries, and after this, if we live righteously, crowns and rewards; after that - corruption and death, and after that - incorruption, immortality and countless blessings; at that sowing there is copulation, lust and sleep, and at the same time there is only a voice descending from heaven, and suddenly everything is accomplished, and the one who rises does not enter into a life of great difficulty, but where there is no illness, no sorrow, no sighing. If you (the wife) need protection and therefore cry for your husband, then resort to the common Defender, Savior and Benefactor - God, to this irresistible help, ready reinforcement, reliable cover, omnipresent and protecting us from everywhere. But the usual treatment of him, would you say, is desirable and pleasant? And I know this; but if you temper your passion with reason and think about who took it, and what you endured firmly, sacrifice your will to God, then you will be able to avoid this wave, and what time does, your wisdom will accomplish; if you are cowardly, then although time will end your sorrow, you will not receive any reward. Along with these thoughts, remember examples, both from real life and from the divine Scriptures; remember how Abraham slain his son, and did not cry, did not utter a word of complaint. But, you say, it was Abraham? And you are called to even greater feats. Job, although he grieved, did so as much as is typical for a father who loves his children and cares for the dead; and what we are doing now is characteristic of enemies and adversaries. In this matter, if you began to cry and weep for someone brought into the royal palace and crowned, then I would not call you his friend, but an open enemy and adversary. But, you say, I’m not mourning him, but myself? And it is unusual for a lover to want him to still worry about you and be exposed to the uncertainty of (your) future, when he should be crowned and go to the haven, or to be overwhelmed by the waves, when he can be in the harbor. But I don’t know, can you tell me where he went? How do you not know, tell me? He lived either righteously or not; therefore it is known where he will go. Is that why I myself, you say, lament that he died a sinner? This is just an excuse and a pretext; if you therefore mourned the deceased, then you would have to correct and improve him during his lifetime; but you only care about yourself, not about him. However, if he died a sinner, then even in this case one must rejoice that his sins have ceased and that he has not yet added evil to evil, and help him as much as possible, not with tears, but with prayers, supplications, alms and offerings. All this has not been established in vain; It is not in vain that during the divine sacraments we commemorate the dead and intercede for them, begging the present Lamb, who took away the sins of the world, but so that they may have some consolation from it; It is not in vain that he who stands before the altar, during the performance of terrible sacraments, cries out: for all those who have fallen asleep in Christ and for those who create memory of them. If commemorations had not been made about them, then these words would not have been spoken. Our actions are not stage shows - let it not be - they are performed according to the dispensation of the Spirit. 5. Let us help them and perform remembrance for them. If Job’s children were cleansed by their father’s sacrifice, then why do you doubt that when we make a sacrifice for the dead, there is some consolation for them? God often gives grace to one for another. Paul explained this when he said, “that for what has been given to us, through the intercession of many, many may give thanks for us” (2 Cor. 1:11). Let us not be too lazy to help the dead, to offer prayers for them, because there is a general cleansing of the universe ahead. That is why we then pray with boldness for the entire universe and name them together with martyrs, confessors and priests. We are all one body, although some members are more excellent than others. Thus, it is possible to gain forgiveness for them from everywhere, both from prayers, and from gifts offered for them, and from those invoked with them. Why do you grieve, why do you cry, when you can gain so much forgiveness for the deceased? Is it because you were left alone and lost your protector? Don't say it; You have not lost God, and as long as you have Him, He himself will be greater to you than husband, father, son, and son-in-law, just as during their lifetime He did everything for you. So think and say like David: “The Lord is my enlightenment and my Savior: whom will I fear?” (Ps. 26:1). And again: “Father of the orphans and Judge of widows” (Ps. 67:6). Pray to Him for help; Now, compared to before, he will provide for you the more, the more difficulty you find yourself in. Or have you (the father) lost your son? Not lost; don't say that. This is a dream, not death, relocation, not loss, a transition from worse to better. Do not irritate God, but appease Him; if you endure it courageously, then from here there will be some consolation for both the deceased and you; if not, then you will anger God even more, just as if, seeing that the master is punishing the slave, you became embittered with him, you would irritate the master even more against himself. Do not do this, but thank God that the cloud of your sorrow will thus dissipate; say like the blessed one (Job): “The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away” (Job.1:21); Imagine how many who pleased God more than you did not even have children at all and were not called fathers. And I, you say, would not want (to have them), because it is better not to experience pleasure than, having experienced it, to lose it. No, I exhort you, do not say that, do not irritate the Lord with this; but give thanks for what you have received, and bless for what you did not keep until the end. Job did not say: it would be better not to have, as you say, ungrateful, but he also gave thanks for that: “The Lord gave, the Lord has also taken away; Blessed be the name of the Lord!” And to his wife, stopping her lips and admonishing her, he said such wonderful words: “Shall we really accept good from God, but not accept evil?” ( Job 2:10 ). And later, when he was subjected to an even graver temptation, he also did not waver, but endured just as courageously and praised (God). Do the same and think within yourself that it was not man who took (your son), but God, who created him, who cares more about him than you and knows what is good for him, and not some enemy or unkind person. Remember how many (children), who survived, made life miserable for their parents. But, you say, don’t you see the virtuous? I see them too; but your son’s condition is more reliable than theirs; they now deserve praise, but their end is unknown; and you no longer need to fear and tremble for him, lest something happen to him, lest some change occur to him. Think the same way about your kind and homely wife, and thank God for everything. If you were to lose your wife, thank Him; maybe God wants to lead you to abstinence, calls you to great deeds, wants to free you from bonds. By contemplating in this way, here too we will gain peace of mind, and we will achieve future crowns, which may we all be worthy of through the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father, with the Holy Spirit, be glory, power, honor, now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen. These conversations were delivered by the saint in Antioch around 390. The paragraphs in the text were arranged by us – Editorial staff of “ABC of Faith” You might be interested in: