Opening the library…

Search the Bible

On the Resurrection of the Flesh

Tertullian

Chapter 35

About this work

Author: Tertullian

Chapter XXXV.—Explanation of What is Meant by the Body, Which is to Be Raised Again. Not the Corporeality of the Soul.

But He also teaches us, that “He is

‹ Chapter 34 Chapter 36 ›

rather

to

be

feared

,

who

is

able

to

destroy

both

body

and

soul

in

hell

,

”

that

is

,

the

Lord

alone

;

“

not

those

which

kill

the

body

,

but

are

not

able

to

hurt

the

soul

,

”

that

is

to

say

,

all

human

powers

.

Here

,

then

,

we

have

a

recognition

of

the

natural

immortality

of

the

soul

,

which

cannot

be

killed

by

men

;

and

of

the

mortality

of

the

body

,

which

may

be

killed

:

whence

we

learn

that

the

resurrection

of

the

dead

is

a

resurrection

of

the

flesh

;

for

unless

it

were

raised

again

,

it

would

be

impossible

for

the

flesh

to

be

“

killed

in

hell

.

”

But

as

a

question

may

be

here

captiously

raised

about

the

meaning

of

“

the

body

”

(

or

“

the

flesh

”

)

,

I

will

at

once

state

that

I

understand

by

the

human

body

nothing

else

than

that

fabric

of

the

flesh

which

,

whatever

be

the

kind

of

material

of

which

it

is

constructed

and

modified

,

is

seen

and

handled

,

and

sometimes

indeed

killed

,

by

men

.

In

like

manner

,

I

should

not

admit

that

anything

but

cement

and

stones

and

bricks

form

the

body

of

a

wall

.

If

any

one

imports

into

our

argument

some

body

of

a

subtle

,

secret

nature

,

he

must

show

,

disclose

,

and

prove

to

me

that

identical

body

is

the

very

one

which

was

slain

by

human

violence

,

and

then

(

I

will

grant

)

that

it

is

of

such

a

body

that

(

our

scripture

)

speaks

.

If

,

again

,

the

body

or

corporeal

nature

of

the

soul

is

cast

in

my

teeth

,

it

will

only

be

an

idle

subterfuge

!

For

since

both

substances

are

set

before

us

(

in

this

passage

,

which

affirms

)

that

“

body

and

soul

”

are

destroyed

in

hell

,

a

distinction

is

obviously

made

between

the

two

;

and

we

are

left

to

understand

the

body

to

be

that

which

is

tangible

to

us

,

that

is

,

the

flesh

,

which

,

as

it

will

be

destroyed

in

hell

—

since

it

did

not

“

rather

fear

”

being

destroyed

by

God

—

so

also

will

it

be

restored

to

life

eternal

,

since

it

preferred

to

be

killed

by

human

hands

.

If

,

therefore

,

any

one

shall

violently

suppose

that

the

destruction

of

the

soul

and

the

flesh

in

hell

amounts

to

a

final

annihilation

of

the

two

substances

,

and

not

to

their

penal

treatment

(

as

if

they

were

to

be

consumed

,

not

punished

)

,

let

him

recollect

that

the

fire

of

hell

is

eternal

—

expressly

announced

as

an

everlasting

penalty

;

and

let

him

then

admit

that

it

is

from

this

circumstance

that

this

never

-

ending

“

killing

”

is

more

formidable

than

a

merely

human

murder

,

which

is

only

temporal

.

He

will

then

come

to

the

conclusion

that

substances

must

be

eternal

,

when

their

penal

“

killing

”

is

an

eternal

one

.

Since

,

then

,

the

body

after

the

resurrection

has

to

be

killed

by

God

in

hell

along

with

the

soul

,

we

surely

have

sufficient

information

in

this

fact

respecting

both

the

issues

which

await

it

,

namely

the

resurrection

of

the

flesh

,

and

its

eternal

“

killing

.

”

Else

it

would

be

most

absurd

if

the

flesh

should

be

raised

up

and

destined

to

“

the

killing

in

hell

,

”

in

order

to

be

put

an

end

to

,

when

it

might

suffer

such

an

annihilation

(

more

directly

)

if

not

raised

again

at

all

.

A

pretty

paradox

,

to

be

sure

,

that

an

essence

must

be

refitted

with

life

,

in

order

that

it

may

receive

that

annihilation

which

has

already

in

fact

accrued

to

it

!

But

Christ

,

whilst

confirming

us

in

the

selfsame

hope

,

adds

the

example

of

“

the

sparrows

”

—

how

that

“

not

one

of

them

falls

to

the

ground

without

the

will

of

God

.

”

He

says

this

,

that

you

may

believe

that

the

flesh

which

has

been

consigned

to

the

ground

,

is

able

in

like

manner

to

rise

again

by

the

will

of

the

same

God

.

For

although

this

is

not

allowed

to

the

sparrows

,

yet

“

we

are

of

more

value

than

many

sparrows

,

”

for

the

very

reason

that

,

when

fallen

,

we

rise

again

.

He

affirms

,

lastly

,

that

“

the

very

hairs

of

our

head

are

all

numbered

,

”

and

in

the

affirmation

He

of

course

includes

the

promise

of

their

safety

;

for

if

they

were

to

be

lost

,

where

would

be

the

use

of

having

taken

such

a

numerical

care

of

them

?

Surely

the

only

use

lies

(

in

this

truth

)

:

“

That

of

all

which

the

Father

hath

given

to

me

,

I

should

lose

none

,

”

—

not

even

a

hair

,

as

also

not

an

eye

nor

a

tooth

.

And

yet

whence

shall

come

that

“

weeping

and

gnashing

of

teeth

,

”

if

not

from

eyes

and

teeth

?

—

even

at

that

time

when

the

body

shall

be

slain

in

hell

,

and

thrust

out

into

that

outer

darkness

which

shall

be

the

suitable

torment

of

the

eyes

.

He

also

who

shall

not

be

clothed

at

the

marriage

feast

in

the

raiment

of

good

works

,

will

have

to

be

“

bound

hand

and

foot

,

”

—

as

being

,

of

course

,

raised

in

his

body

.

So

,

again

,

the

very

reclining

at

the

feast

in

the

kingdom

of

God

,

and

sitting

on

Christ’s

thrones

,

and

standing

at

last

on

His

right

hand

and

His

left

,

and

eating

of

the

tree

of

life

:

what

are

all

these

but

most

certain

proofs

of

a

bodily

appointment

and

destination

?

Notes

1
Matt. x. 28.
2
Tertullian supposed that even the soul was in a certain sense of a corporeal essence. [Compare the speculations of Crusius in Auberlen, Divine Revelation, (Translation of A.B. Paton, Edinburgh, Clarks, 1867).]
3
Scilicet.
4
Matt. x. 29.
5
Ver. 31.
6
Matt. x. 30.
7
John vi. 39.
8
Matt. viii. 12; xiii. 42; xxii. 13; xxv. 30.