Homilies on First Corinthians

But some one will say, How are the dead raised? And with what manner of body do they come? Thou foolish one, that which you yourself sowest is not quickened, except it die.

Gentle and lowly as the apostle is to a great degree every where, he here adopts a style rather pungent, because of the impiety of the gainsayers. He is not however content with this, but he also employs reasons and examples, subduing thereby even the very contentious. And above he says, “Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead;” but here he solves an objection brought in by the Gentiles. And see how again he abates the vehemence of his censure; in that he said not, “but perhaps you will say,” but he set down the objector indefinitely, in order that, although employing his impetuous style with all freedom, he might not too severely wound his hearers. And he states two difficulties, one touching the manner of the resurrection, the other, the kind of bodies. For of both they on their part made a question, saying, “How is that which has been dissolved raised up?” and, “with what manner of body do they come?” But what means, “with what manner of body?” It is as if they had said, “with this which has been wasted, which has perished, or with some other?”

Then, to point out that the objects of their enquiry are not questionable but admitted points, he at once meets them more sharply, saying, “Thou foolish one, that which you yourself sowest is not quickened, except it die.” Which we also are wont to do in the case of those who gainsay things acknowledged.

2. And wherefore did he not at once appeal to the power of God? Because he is discoursing with unbelievers. For when his discourse is addressed to believers, he has not much need of reasons. Wherefore having said elsewhere, “He shall change the body of your humiliation, that it may be fashioned like to the body of his glory,” and having indicated somewhat more than the resurrection, he stated no analogies, but instead of any demonstration, brought forward the power of God, going on to say, “according to the working whereby He is able to subject all things to Himself.” But here he also urges reasons. That is, having established it from the Scriptures, he adds also in what comes after, these things over and above, with an eye to them who do not obey the Scriptures; and he says, “O foolish one, that which You sow:” i.e., “from yourself you have the proof of these things, by what you do every day, and do you doubt yet? Therefore do I call you foolish because of the things daily done by your own self you are ignorant, and being yourself an artificer of a resurrection, you doubt concerning God.” Wherefore very emphatically he said, “what You sow,” thou who art mortal and perishing.

And see how he uses expressions appropriate to the purpose he had in view: thus, “it is not quickened,” says he, “except it die.” Leaving, you see, the terms appropriate to seed, as that “it buds,” and “grows,” and “is dissolved,” he adopts those which correspond to our flesh, viz. “it is quickened,” and, “except it die;” which do not properly belong to seeds, but to bodies.

And he said not, “after it is dead it lives,” but, which is a greater thing, “therefore it lives, because it dies.” Do you see, what I am always observing, that he continually gives their argument the contrary turn? Thus what they made a sure sign of our not rising again, the same he makes a demonstration of our rising. For they said, “the body rises not again, because it is dead.” What then does he, retorting their argument, say? “Nay, but unless it died, it could not rise again: and therefore it rises again, because it died.” For as Christ more clearly signifies this very thing, in the words, “Except a grain of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abides by itself alone: but if it die, it bears much fruit:” thence also Paul, drawing this example, said not, “it does not live,” but, “is not quickened;” again assuming the power of God and showing that not the nature of the ground, but God Himself, brings it all to pass.

And what can be the reason that he did not bring that forward, which was more akin to the subject: I mean, the seed of mankind? (For our generation too begins from a sort of decay, even as that of the grain.) Because it was not of equal force, but the latter was a more complete instance: for he wants a case of something that perished entirely, whereas this was but a part; wherefore he rather alleges the other. Besides, that proceeds from a living body and falls into a living womb; but here it is no flesh, but the earth into which the seed is cast, and into the same it is dissolved, like the body which is dead. Wherefore on this account too the example was more appropriate.