Opening the library…

Home Bible Corpus Discover You

Search the Bible

On the Resurrection of the Flesh

Tertullian

Chapter 36

About this work

Author: Tertullian

Chapter XXXVI.—Christ’s Refutation of the Sadducees, and Affirmation of Catholic Doctrine.

Let us now see whether (the Lord) has

‹ Chapter 35 Chapter 37 ›

not

imparted

greater

strength

to

our

doctrine

in

breaking

down

the

subtle

cavil

of

the

Sadducees

.

Their

great

object

,

I

take

it

,

was

to

do

away

altogether

with

the

resurrection

,

for

the

Sadducees

in

fact

did

not

admit

any

salvation

either

for

the

soul

or

the

flesh

;

and

therefore

,

taking

the

strongest

case

they

could

for

impairing

the

credibility

of

the

resurrection

,

they

adapted

an

argument

from

it

in

support

of

the

question

which

they

started

.

Their

specious

inquiry

concerned

the

flesh

,

whether

or

not

it

would

be

subject

to

marriage

after

the

resurrection

;

and

they

assumed

the

case

of

a

woman

who

had

married

seven

brothers

,

so

that

it

was

a

doubtful

point

to

which

of

them

she

should

be

restored

.

Now

,

let

the

purport

both

of

the

question

and

the

answer

be

kept

steadily

in

view

,

and

the

discussion

is

settled

at

once

.

For

since

the

Sadducees

indeed

denied

the

resurrection

,

whilst

the

Lord

affirmed

it

;

since

,

too

,

(

in

affirming

it

,

)

He

reproached

them

as

being

both

ignorant

of

the

Scriptures

—

those

,

of

course

which

had

declared

the

resurrection

—

as

well

as

incredulous

of

the

power

of

God

,

though

,

of

course

,

effectual

to

raise

the

dead

,

and

lastly

,

since

He

immediately

added

the

words

,

“

Now

,

that

the

dead

are

raised

,

”

(

speaking

)

without

misgiving

,

and

affirming

the

very

thing

which

was

being

denied

,

even

the

resurrection

of

the

dead

before

Him

who

is

“

the

God

of

the

living

,

”

—

(

it

clearly

follows

)

that

He

affirmed

this

verity

in

the

precise

sense

in

which

they

were

denying

it

;

that

it

was

,

in

fact

,

the

resurrection

of

the

two

natures

of

man

.

Nor

does

it

follow

,

(

as

they

would

have

it

,

)

that

because

Christ

denied

that

men

would

marry

,

He

therefore

proved

that

they

would

not

rise

again

.

On

the

contrary

,

He

called

them

“

the

children

of

the

resurrection

,

”

in

a

certain

sense

having

by

the

resurrection

to

undergo

a

birth

;

and

after

that

they

marry

no

more

,

but

in

their

risen

life

are

“

equal

unto

the

angels

,

”

inasmuch

as

they

are

not

to

marry

,

because

they

are

not

to

die

,

but

are

destined

to

pass

into

the

angelic

state

by

putting

on

the

raiment

of

incorruption

,

although

with

a

change

in

the

substance

which

is

restored

to

life

.

Besides

,

no

question

could

be

raised

whether

we

are

to

marry

or

die

again

or

not

,

without

involving

in

doubt

the

restoration

most

especially

of

that

substance

which

has

a

particular

relation

both

to

death

and

marriage

—

that

is

,

the

flesh

.

Thus

,

then

,

you

have

the

Lord

affirming

against

the

Jewish

heretics

what

is

now

encountering

the

denial

of

the

Christian

Sadducees

—

the

resurrection

of

the

entire

man

.

Notes

1
Compare Tertullian’s De Præscript. Hæret. c. xxxiii.
2
Matt. xxii. 23–32; Mark xii. 18–27; Luke xx. 27–38.
3
Luke xx. 37.
4
Ver. 36.
5
Ver. 36.