Opening the library…

Search the Bible

On the Resurrection of the Flesh

Tertullian

Chapter 55

About this work

Author: Tertullian

Chapter LV.—The Change of a Thing’s Condition is Not the Destruction of Its Substance. The Application of This Principle to Our Subject.

Now although, in proving that the flesh shall rise

‹ Chapter 54 Chapter 56 ›

again

we

ipso

facto

prove

that

no

other

flesh

will

partake

of

that

resurrection

than

that

which

is

in

question

,

yet

insulated

questions

and

their

occasions

do

require

even

discussions

of

their

own

,

even

if

they

have

been

already

sufficiently

met

.

We

will

therefore

give

a

fuller

explanation

of

the

force

and

the

reason

of

a

change

which

(

is

so

great

,

that

it

)

almost

suggests

the

presumption

that

it

is

a

different

flesh

which

is

to

rise

again

;

as

if

,

indeed

,

so

great

a

change

amounted

to

utter

cessation

,

and

a

complete

destruction

of

the

former

self

.

A

distinction

,

however

,

must

be

made

between

a

change

,

however

great

,

and

everything

which

has

the

character

of

destruction

.

For

undergoing

change

is

one

thing

,

but

being

destroyed

is

another

thing

.

Now

this

distinction

would

no

longer

exist

,

if

the

flesh

were

to

suffer

such

a

change

as

amounts

to

destruction

.

Destroyed

,

however

,

it

must

be

by

the

change

,

unless

it

shall

itself

persistently

remain

throughout

the

altered

condition

which

shall

be

exhibited

in

the

resurrection

.

For

precisely

as

it

perishes

,

if

it

does

not

rise

again

,

so

also

does

it

equally

perish

even

if

it

does

rise

again

,

on

the

supposition

that

it

is

lost

in

the

change

.

It

will

as

much

fail

of

a

future

existence

,

as

if

it

did

not

rise

again

at

all

.

And

how

absurd

is

it

to

rise

again

for

the

purpose

of

not

having

a

being

,

when

it

had

it

in

its

power

not

to

rise

again

,

and

so

lose

its

being

—

because

it

had

already

begun

its

non

-

existence

!

Now

,

things

which

are

absolutely

different

,

as

mutation

and

destruction

are

,

will

not

admit

of

mixture

and

confusion

;

in

their

operations

,

too

,

they

differ

.

One

destroys

,

the

other

changes

.

Therefore

,

as

that

which

is

destroyed

is

not

changed

,

so

that

which

is

changed

is

not

destroyed

.

To

perish

is

altogether

to

cease

to

be

what

a

thing

once

was

,

whereas

to

be

changed

is

to

exist

in

another

condition

.

Now

,

if

a

thing

exists

in

another

condition

,

it

can

still

be

the

same

thing

itself

;

for

since

it

does

not

perish

,

it

has

its

existence

still

.

A

change

,

indeed

,

it

has

experienced

,

but

not

a

destruction

.

A

thing

may

undergo

a

complete

change

,

and

yet

remain

still

the

same

thing

.

In

like

manner

,

a

man

also

may

be

quite

himself

in

substance

even

in

the

present

life

,

and

for

all

that

undergo

various

changes

—

in

habit

,

in

bodily

bulk

,

in

health

,

in

condition

,

in

dignity

,

and

in

age

—

in

taste

,

business

,

means

,

houses

,

laws

and

customs

—

and

still

lose

nothing

of

his

human

nature

,

nor

so

to

be

made

another

man

as

to

cease

to

be

the

same

;

indeed

,

I

ought

hardly

to

say

another

man

,

but

another

thing

.

This

form

of

change

even

the

Holy

Scriptures

give

us

instances

of

.

The

hand

of

Moses

is

changed

,

and

it

becomes

like

a

dead

one

,

bloodless

,

colourless

,

and

stiff

with

cold

;

but

on

the

recovery

of

heat

,

and

on

the

restoration

of

its

natural

colour

,

it

is

again

the

same

flesh

and

blood

.

Afterwards

the

face

of

the

same

Moses

is

changed

,

with

a

brightness

which

eye

could

not

bear

.

But

he

was

Moses

still

,

even

when

he

was

not

visible

.

So

also

Stephen

had

already

put

on

the

appearance

of

an

angel

,

although

they

were

none

other

than

his

human

knees

which

bent

beneath

the

stoning

.

The

Lord

,

again

,

in

the

retirement

of

the

mount

,

had

changed

His

raiment

for

a

robe

of

light

;

but

He

still

retained

features

which

Peter

could

recognise

.

In

that

same

scene

Moses

also

and

Elias

gave

proof

that

the

same

condition

of

bodily

existence

may

continue

even

in

glory

—

the

one

in

the

likeness

of

a

flesh

which

he

had

not

yet

recovered

,

the

other

in

the

reality

of

one

which

he

had

not

yet

put

off

.

It

was

as

full

of

this

splendid

example

that

Paul

said

:

“

Who

shall

change

our

vile

body

,

that

it

may

be

fashioned

like

unto

His

glorious

body

.

”

But

if

you

maintain

that

a

transfiguration

and

a

conversion

amounts

to

the

annihilation

of

any

substance

,

then

it

follows

that

“

Saul

,

when

changed

into

another

man

,

”

passed

away

from

his

own

bodily

substance

;

and

that

Satan

himself

,

when

“

transformed

into

an

angel

of

light

,

”

loses

his

own

proper

character

.

Such

is

not

my

opinion

.

So

likewise

changes

,

conversions

and

reformations

will

necessarily

take

place

to

bring

about

the

resurrection

,

but

the

substance

of

the

flesh

will

still

be

preserved

safe

.

Notes

1
Subducitur.
2
Ex. iv. 6, 7.
3
Ex. xxxiv. 29, 35.
4
Acts vi. 15.
5
Acts vii. 59, 60.
6
Matt. xvii. 2–4.
7
Ver. 3.
8
Phil. iii. 21.
9
1 Sam. x. 6.
10
2 Cor. xi. 14.