On the Resurrection of the Flesh

SOME: however, argue that the soul is the natural, or animate, body. They do this so they can separate the flesh from any connection with the body that rises again. But it is a clear and settled point that the body which will rise again is the one that was sown in death. So they must be pressed to examine the fact itself. Otherwise, let them show that the soul was sown after death. In other words, let them show that it underwent death — that it was destroyed, torn apart, dissolved in the ground. Yet God never declared any such thing against it. Let them show us its corruption and dishonor, as well as its weakness, so that it too may be said to rise again in incorruption, in glory, and in power, as 1 Corinthians 15:42-43 says. Now in the case of Lazarus, which we may take as the chief example of a resurrection, the flesh lay helpless in weakness. The flesh was nearly rotten in the dishonor of decay. The flesh gave off a bad smell in corruption. And yet Lazarus rose again as flesh — with his soul, of course. But that soul was not corruptible. No one had wrapped it in burial cloths. No one had placed it in a tomb. No one had yet noticed it smelling bad. No one had seen it sown for four days. Well then, all men still experience this whole condition, this whole end, in the flesh, but no one does in the soul. Therefore, the substance to which the apostle's whole description plainly refers, and of which he clearly speaks, must be the natural, or animate, body when it is sown, and the spiritual body when it is raised again. For so that you may understand it this way, he points to the same conclusion when, using the authority of the same passage of Scripture, he shows us that the first man Adam was made a living soul. Now since Adam was the first man, and since the flesh was man before the soul, it clearly follows that it was the flesh that became a living soul. Moreover, since it was a bodily substance that took on this condition, it was of course the natural, or animate, body that became a living soul. By what name would they have it called, except the name it became through the soul, except what it was not before the soul, except what it can never be after the soul except through its resurrection? For after it has received the soul again, it once more becomes the natural, or animate, body, so that it may become a spiritual body. For in the resurrection it only takes back the condition it once had. Therefore there is no equally good reason why the soul should be called the natural, or animate, body, as there is for the flesh to bear that name. In fact, the flesh was a body before it was an animate body. When the flesh was joined with the soul, then it became the natural, or animate, body. Now although the soul is a bodily substance, it is not an animated body, but rather something that gives animation. So it cannot be called the animate, or natural, body, nor can it become the thing that it produces. In fact, it is when the soul comes to something else that it makes that thing animate. But unless it comes to something else, how will it ever produce animation? Therefore, just as the flesh was at first an animate, or natural, body when it received the soul, so at the end it will become a spiritual body when clothed with the spirit. Now the apostle, by bringing forward this order separately in Adam and in Christ, clearly distinguishes between the two states in the very points where they differ. And when he calls Christ the last Adam, in 1 Corinthians 15:45, you may see from this how strongly he works throughout his teaching to establish the resurrection of the flesh, not of the soul. So then, the first man Adam was flesh, not soul, and only afterward became a living soul. And the last Adam, Christ, was Adam only because He was man, and man only because He was flesh, not because He was soul. So the apostle goes on to say, "However, that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual," in 1 Corinthians 15:46, as in the case of the two Adams. Now, do you not think that he is distinguishing between the natural body and the spiritual body in the same flesh, after he has already made that distinction there in the two Adams, that is, in the first man and in the last? For from what substance do Christ and Adam have likeness with each other? No doubt it is from their flesh, although it may also be from their soul. However, it is with respect to the flesh that both are man, for the flesh was man before the soul. It was actually from the flesh that they were able to be ranked, so as to be considered one the first man, and the other the last man, or Adam. Besides, things that differ in character can only fail to be arranged in the same order when their difference is a difference of substance. But when the difference is one of place, or time, or condition, they probably can be grouped together. Here, however, they are called first and last because of the substance of their shared flesh, just as later the first man is said to be of the earth, and the second of heaven. But although He is of heaven with respect to the spirit, He is still man according to the flesh. Now since it is the flesh, and not the soul, that makes this ordering of the two Adams possible, so that the distinction is drawn between the first man becoming a living soul and the last becoming a life-giving spirit, in the same way this distinction between them has already suggested the conclusion that the distinction belongs to the flesh. So these words speak of the flesh: "However, that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual." And so too, the same flesh must be understood in the earlier passage: "That which is sown is the natural body, and that which rises again is the spiritual body," because "that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural," since "the first Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit," as 1 Corinthians 15:44-45 says. It is all about man, and it is all about the flesh because it is about man.

WHAT: then, shall we say? Does not the flesh even now, in this life, have the Spirit by faith? So the question still remains: how can the natural body be said to be sown? Certainly, even here the flesh has received the Spirit, but only as a pledge. Yet from the soul it has received, not a pledge, but full possession. Therefore it is called a natural body, specifically because of the higher substance of the soul, or anima, in which it is sown. Later it is meant to become, through the full possession of the Spirit that it will receive, the spiritual body, in which it is raised again. What wonder is it, then, if it is more commonly called by the substance with which it is fully supplied, rather than by that of which it has as yet only a small portion?