Opening the library…

Search the Bible

On the Resurrection of the Flesh

Tertullian

Chapter 48

About this work

Author: Tertullian

Chapter XLVIII.—Sundry Passages in the Great Chapter of the Resurrection of the Dead Explained in Defence of Our Doctrine.

But “flesh and blood,” you say,

‹ Chapter 47 Chapter 49 ›

“

cannot

inherit

the

kingdom

of

God

.

”

We

are

quite

aware

that

this

too

is

written

;

but

although

our

opponents

place

it

in

the

front

of

the

battle

,

we

have

intentionally

reserved

the

objection

until

now

,

in

order

that

we

may

in

our

last

assault

overthrow

it

,

after

we

have

removed

out

of

the

way

all

the

questions

which

are

auxiliary

to

it

.

However

,

they

must

contrive

to

recall

to

their

mind

even

now

our

preceding

arguments

,

in

order

that

the

occasion

which

originally

suggested

this

passage

may

assist

our

judgment

in

arriving

at

its

meaning

.

The

apostle

,

as

I

take

it

,

having

set

forth

for

the

Corinthians

the

details

of

their

church

discipline

,

had

summed

up

the

substance

of

his

own

gospel

,

and

of

their

belief

in

an

exposition

of

the

Lord’s

death

and

resurrection

,

for

the

purpose

of

deducing

therefrom

the

rule

of

our

hope

,

and

the

groundwork

thereof

.

Accordingly

he

subjoins

this

statement

:

“

Now

if

Christ

be

preached

that

He

rose

from

the

dead

,

how

say

some

among

you

that

there

is

no

resurrection

of

the

dead

?

If

there

be

no

resurrection

of

the

dead

,

then

Christ

is

not

risen

:

and

if

Christ

be

not

risen

,

then

is

our

preaching

vain

,

and

your

faith

is

also

vain

.

Yea

,

and

we

are

found

false

witnesses

of

God

;

because

we

have

testified

of

God

that

He

raised

up

Christ

,

whom

He

raised

not

up

,

if

so

be

that

the

dead

rise

not

.

For

if

the

dead

rise

not

,

then

is

not

Christ

raised

:

and

if

Christ

be

not

raised

,

your

faith

is

vain

,

because

ye

are

yet

in

your

sins

,

and

they

which

have

fallen

asleep

in

Christ

are

perished

.

”

Now

,

what

is

the

point

which

he

evidently

labours

hard

to

make

us

believe

throughout

this

passage

?

The

resurrection

of

the

dead

,

you

say

,

which

was

denied

:

he

certainly

wished

it

to

be

believed

on

the

strength

of

the

example

which

he

adduced

—

the

Lord’s

resurrection

.

Certainly

,

you

say

.

Well

now

,

is

an

example

borrowed

from

different

circumstances

,

or

from

like

ones

?

From

like

ones

,

by

all

means

,

is

your

answer

.

How

then

did

Christ

rise

again

?

In

the

flesh

,

or

not

?

No

doubt

,

since

you

are

told

that

He

“

died

according

to

the

Scriptures

,

”

and

“

that

He

was

buried

according

to

the

Scriptures

,

”

no

otherwise

than

in

the

flesh

,

you

will

also

allow

that

it

was

in

the

flesh

that

He

was

raised

from

the

dead

.

For

the

very

same

body

which

fell

in

death

,

and

which

lay

in

the

sepulchre

,

did

also

rise

again

;

(

and

it

was

)

not

so

much

Christ

in

the

flesh

,

as

the

flesh

in

Christ

.

If

,

therefore

,

we

are

to

rise

again

after

the

example

of

Christ

,

who

rose

in

the

flesh

,

we

shall

certainly

not

rise

according

to

that

example

,

unless

we

also

shall

ourselves

rise

again

in

the

flesh

.

“

For

,

”

he

says

,

“

since

by

man

came

death

,

by

man

came

also

the

resurrection

of

the

dead

.

”

(

This

he

says

)

in

order

,

on

the

one

hand

,

to

distinguish

the

two

authors

—

Adam

of

death

,

Christ

of

resurrection

;

and

,

on

the

other

hand

,

to

make

the

resurrection

operate

on

the

same

substance

as

the

death

,

by

comparing

the

authors

themselves

under

the

designation

man

.

For

if

“

as

in

Adam

all

die

,

even

so

in

Christ

shall

all

be

made

alive

,

”

their

vivification

in

Christ

must

be

in

the

flesh

,

since

it

is

in

the

flesh

that

arises

their

death

in

Adam

.

“

But

every

man

in

his

own

order

,

”

because

of

course

it

will

be

also

every

man

in

his

own

body

.

For

the

order

will

be

arranged

severally

,

on

account

of

the

individual

merits

.

Now

,

as

the

merits

must

be

ascribed

to

the

body

,

it

must

needs

follow

that

the

order

also

should

be

arranged

in

respect

of

the

bodies

,

that

it

may

be

in

relation

to

their

merits

.

But

inasmuch

as

“

some

are

also

baptized

for

the

dead

,

”

we

will

see

whether

there

be

a

good

reason

for

this

.

Now

it

is

certain

that

they

adopted

this

(

practice

)

with

such

a

presumption

as

made

them

suppose

that

the

vicarious

baptism

(

in

question

)

would

be

beneficial

to

the

flesh

of

another

in

anticipation

of

the

resurrection

;

for

unless

it

were

a

bodily

resurrection

,

there

would

be

no

pledge

secured

by

this

process

of

a

corporeal

baptism

.

“

Why

are

they

then

baptized

for

the

dead

,

”

he

asks

,

unless

the

bodies

rise

again

which

are

thus

baptized

?

For

it

is

not

the

soul

which

is

sanctified

by

the

baptismal

bath

:

its

sanctification

comes

from

the

“

answer

.

”

“

And

why

,

”

he

inquires

,

“

stand

we

in

jeopardy

every

hour

?

”

—

meaning

,

of

course

,

through

the

flesh

.

“

I

die

daily

,

”

(

says

he

)

;

that

is

,

undoubtedly

,

in

the

perils

of

the

body

,

in

which

“

he

even

fought

with

beasts

at

Ephesus

,

”

—

even

with

those

beasts

which

caused

him

such

peril

and

trouble

in

Asia

,

to

which

he

alludes

in

his

second

epistle

to

the

same

church

of

Corinth

:

“

For

we

would

not

,

brethren

,

have

you

ignorant

of

our

trouble

which

came

to

us

in

Asia

,

that

we

were

pressed

above

measure

,

above

strength

,

insomuch

that

we

despaired

even

of

life

.

”

Now

,

if

I

mistake

not

,

he

enumerates

all

these

particulars

in

order

that

in

his

unwillingness

to

have

his

conflicts

in

the

flesh

supposed

to

be

useless

,

he

may

induce

an

unfaltering

belief

in

the

resurrection

of

the

flesh

.

For

useless

must

that

conflict

be

deemed

(

which

is

sustained

in

a

body

)

for

which

no

resurrection

is

in

prospect

.

“

But

some

man

will

say

,

How

are

the

dead

to

be

raised

?

And

with

what

body

will

they

come

?

”

Now

here

he

discusses

the

qualities

of

bodies

,

whether

it

be

the

very

same

,

or

different

ones

,

which

men

are

to

resume

.

Since

,

however

,

such

a

question

as

this

must

be

regarded

as

a

subsequent

one

,

it

will

in

passing

be

enough

for

us

that

the

resurrection

is

determined

to

be

a

bodily

one

even

from

this

,

that

it

is

about

the

quality

of

bodies

that

the

inquiry

arises

.

Notes

1
1 Cor. xv. 50.
2
1 Cor. xv. 12–18.
3
Ver. 3.
4
Ver. 4.
5
Ver. 21.
6
1 Cor. xv. 22.
7
Ver. 23.
8
Ver. 29.
9
Ver. 29.
10
Lavatione.
11
Comp. 1 Pet. iii. 21.
12
1 Cor. xv. 30.
13
Ver. 31.
14
Ver. 32.
15
2 Cor. i. 8.
16
1 Cor. xv. 35.