Homilies on First Corinthians

“But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ been raised.”

Do you see Paul's energy, and his spirit for the combat, so invincible? How not only from what is evident he demonstrates what is doubted, but also from what is doubted, endeavors to demonstrate to gainsayers the former evident proposition? Not because what had already taken place required demonstration, but that he might signify this to be equally worthy of belief with that.

3. “And what kind of consequence is this?” says one. “For if Christ be not raised, that then neither should others be raised, does follow: but that if others be not raised, neither should Christ be raised, what reason can there be in this?” Since then this does not appear to be very reasonable, see how he works it out wisely, scattering his seeds beforehand from the beginning, even from the very groundwork of the Gospel: as, that “having died for our sins,” He was raised; and that He is “the first-fruits of them that slept.” For the first-fruits— of what can He be the first-fruits, except of them that are raised? And how can He be first-fruits, if they rise not of whom He is first-fruits? How then are they not raised?

Again, if they be not raised, wherefore was Christ raised? Wherefore came He? Wherefore did He take upon Him flesh, if he were not about to raise flesh again? For He stood not in need of it Himself but for our sakes. But these things he afterwards set down as he goes on; for the present he says, “If the dead be not raised, neither has Christ been raised,” as though that were connected with this. For had He not intended to raise Himself, He would not have wrought that other work. Do you see by degrees the whole economy overthrown by those words of theirs and by their unbelief in the resurrection? But as yet he says nothing of the incarnation, but of the resurrection. For not His having become incarnate, but His having died, took away death; since while He had flesh, the tyranny of death still had dominion.