Thomas Aquinas Commentary 1 Corinthians 15

After instructing the Corinthians about the sacrament and the reality it contains and signifies—namely, grace and its effects—the Apostle now instructs them about a reality that is not contained but is signified in the sacraments: the glory of the resurrection. This glory is not contained in a sacrament, since the one who receives it does not obtain it at once. Instead, the glory of the resurrection is signified in the sacraments, because the grace by which we reach beatitude is conferred in them.

In regard to this, he does two things: first, he introduces a discussion on the resurrection; second, he uses this to prove the general resurrection of all people (see verse 12). Concerning the first point, he again does two things: first, he commends the doctrine of the gospel; second, he declares what should be known about the resurrection of Christ (see verse 3).

He commends the excellence of the gospel’s doctrine in four ways:

1. First, regarding the authority of the preachers, because they are apostles. This is what he says: Brethren, connecting himself to what went before, I would remind you in what terms I preached to you the gospel. The gospel is the good news, which begins with Christ. Therefore, whatever pertains to or concerns Christ is called a gospel. In what terms I preached to you is as if to say: What I have preached to you about Christ I now make known to you—that is, I recall it to your memory, as though the things I write are not new: To write the same things to you is not burdensome to me (Philippians 3:1). In this, the authority of this doctrine appears, because it is from Christ, from Paul, and from the other apostles: It was declared at first by the Lord and was confirmed for us (Hebrews 2:3).

2. Second, regarding the common faith of all people. Therefore, he says: which you received, meaning all of you. Augustine says that this pertains to the evidence of this faith, using this argument: To believe the articles of faith, either miracles are performed or they are not. If miracles are performed, I have proven my point that they are most worthy and certain. If none are performed, this is the greatest of all miracles: that a few men converted an infinite multitude of people to the faith. Rich men were converted by poor men preaching poverty; wise men and philosophers were converted by men of one language who preached things that surpass reason: Their voice goes out through all the earth (Psalms 19:4). If it is objected that the law of Mohammed has also been received by many, the answer is that the cases are not alike. He subjugated people through oppression and by force of arms, but the apostles brought others to the faith by dying and by working signs and wonders. For he proposed things that pertain to pleasure and sensuality, but Christ and the apostles taught contempt for earthly things: When you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you received it… as the word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

3. Third, regarding its strength, because it confirms and elevates us to heavenly things. Therefore, he says: in which you stand, namely, elevated to heavenly things. For a person is said to stand who is upright, and this the law of Christ alone does: Justified by faith, we have access to that grace in which we stand (Romans 5:1). The Old Law made one stand, but it bent one toward earthly things: The eye of Jacob in a land of grain and wine (Deuteronomy 33:28).

4. Fourth, regarding its usefulness, because the New Law alone leads to the end of salvation, but not the Old Law: The law brought no one to perfection (Hebrews 7:19). And therefore he says: by which you are saved. Here, you are already saved by the certainty of hope through its beginning, which is our faith, and you will be saved in the future in the fullness of that reality: Receive with meekness the implanted word which can save your souls (James 1:21); But these things are written that you may believe and that believing you may have life (John 20:31). Here he lays down two conditions. The first is when he says: If you hold it fast. A Gloss explains this as: If you hold to the reason I preached that gospel to you—that is, the resurrection of the dead—by the same reasoning with which I confirmed it for you—that is, by the resurrection of Christ. In other words, you will be saved provided that you hold fast to, or preserve, the reason I preached the gospel of Christ to you. He presents the second condition when he says: Unless you believed in vain. This is as if to say: You will be saved through faith, if you have not believed in vain—that is, if good works are added to faith, because faith without works is dead (James 2:26). For something is said to be in vain when it exists for an end it does not achieve. The end of faith is the vision of God. Therefore, if you are not saved, you have believed in vain—not absolutely, but because your faith did not achieve its end. In other words: If you hold it fast. As if to say: You should hold it fast, unless you want to have believed in vain.

For I delivered to you. Here he clarifies his proposition. He does this in three steps: first, he shows the origin of the doctrine of Christ’s resurrection; second, he shows what is contained in this doctrine (see verse 3b); and third, he shows the agreement of the preachers on this doctrine (see verse 11).

First, therefore, he says: You should hold fast to that—meaning, keep in your memory what I delivered to you as of first importance, and what I continue to deliver. Therefore, what I delivered to you as of first importance, namely, about the Incarnation, I delivered it not from myself or on my own authority, but as something I received from Christ or from the Holy Spirit: Paul, an apostle (Galatians 1:1); For I received from the Lord Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:23); What I have heard from the Lord of hosts (Isaiah 21:10).

The things he received and delivered are four: the death, burial, resurrection, and appearance of Christ.

1. First, I have delivered to you the death of Christ; therefore he says, that Christ died. In these words, he removes two suspicions that can arise about the death of Christ. The first is that He died for His own actual sins or for original sin. He excludes this when he says: for our sins, not His: He was stricken for the transgressions of my people (Isaiah 53:8); Christ died once for all for our sins, the just for the unjust (1 Peter 3:18). The other suspicion is that the death of Christ was by chance or by the violence of the Jews. This he excludes when he says: according to the Scriptures: Like a lamb he was led away to the slaughter (Isaiah 53:7); I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter (Jeremiah 11:19); Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem and the Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests (Matthew 20:18).

2. Second, I delivered to you the burial of Christ; therefore he says: that he was buried. But is the burial a special article of faith, since he makes special mention of it? The answer is that according to those who number the articles of faith by the things to be believed, it is not a special article but is included in the article of the passion and death of Christ. The reason for this is that faith is concerned with things that are above reason. Therefore, an article of faith begins where reason falls short. The first is that the Lord was conceived, and so the conception is an article of faith. The second is that God was born of a virgin, and so this is another. The third is that God, who is incapable of suffering, suffers and dies, and this is another article, and the burial is understood along with this. Hence, it is not a special article. But the Apostle mentions the burial for three reasons. First, to show the truth of Christ’s death, for the evident sign of one’s death is burial. Second, to show the truth of the resurrection, because if He had not been buried, guards would not have been placed at the tomb, nor could they say that the disciples had stolen His body. Third, because the Apostle wants to persuade them to believe in the resurrection, and it seems more difficult that a buried person should rise: And his tomb shall be glorious (Isaiah 11:10); They made his grave with the wicked (Isaiah 53:9).

3. Third, I also delivered to you the resurrection, that he rose on the third day: After two days he will revive us (Hosea 6:2). He says, on the third day, not because there were three full days, but two nights and one day, which is an example of synecdoche. As Augustine says, the reason for this was that God, by His single nature, signified by the one day—that is, by the evil of punishment—destroyed our double problem of punishment and guilt, which is signified by the two nights.

4. Fourth, I delivered to you the appearance of Christ, because he appeared to Cephas. He first presents the appearances made to others, and second, the appearance made to himself alone (see verse 8).

It should be noted, regarding the first point, that the appearances of Christ were not made to everyone in common, but to certain special persons: God raised him up on the third day and made him manifest not to all the people (Acts 10:40). The reason for this was to preserve order in the Church, so that belief in the resurrection would reach others through certain key individuals. It should also be noted that not all of Christ’s appearances are mentioned, nor those that were made to the women. But some not mentioned in the gospel are mentioned here. The reason for this was that the Apostle wants to refute unbelievers by reason, and therefore he wanted to present only authoritative testimonies. Consequently, he remained silent about the appearances to the women and mentioned some which are not found in the gospels, to show that He also appeared to many others. But he mentions Peter and James because they were like pillars, as it says in Galatians 2:9.

Then again he appeared to more than five hundred. Nothing is mentioned in Scripture about this, except here. Yet it can be said that this appearance was the one about which Dionysius speaks in The Divine Names III, when all the disciples assembled to see the body of the one they considered the prince of life. But against this seems to be the fact that this was before the ascension, namely, when Christ appeared to James. The assembly of disciples to see the Blessed Virgin, about which Dionysius seems to speak, was much later. Therefore, it seems better to say that He appeared to five hundred brethren all at once before His ascension. It is not a problem that there were said to be 120 disciples, because although the ones in Jerusalem were 120, there were nevertheless many disciples in Galilee, and perhaps all were assembled at one time when He appeared. To make his testimony more certain, he says that most of them are still alive, but some of them have fallen asleep—that is, died—in the hope of the resurrection. The death of the saints is called "sleep" because they die with corruptible flesh and rise with incorruptible flesh. We know that Christ being raised from the dead, will never die again (Romans 6:9).

Then, after this, he was seen by James, that is, the son of Alphaeus. A reason for this can be given: as it is written, James vowed that he would not eat until he saw the Lord. But according to this, the order of appearances is not observed, because if an appearance was made to James after all those listed, he would have been without food for too long, which is hard to believe. Therefore, it must be said that Christ made a special appearance to James because James had a special devotion to Christ, and furthermore, nothing is found in the gospel about that appearance. Then, after this, He was seen by all the apostles at the ascension, as it says in Matthew 28:16 and in Acts 1:3 and following.

Last of all. Here the Apostle recalls the appearance made to him alone. In this regard, he does two things: first, he shows the order of the appearances; second, he gives the reason for it (see verse 9).

He says, therefore: I have said that Christ was manifested to all, but last of all—that is, finally and after the resurrection—he appeared to me as to one untimely born, and therefore as the last. He says, as one untimely born for three reasons. The term "untimely born" refers to a fetus because it is born outside the proper time, brought forth with violence, or not born with the proper size. Because the Apostle saw these three things in himself, he says: as one untimely born. First, he was reborn outside the time of the other apostles, for the other apostles were reborn in Christ before the coming of the Holy Spirit, but Paul was reborn after. Second, the other apostles were converted to Christ spontaneously, but Paul by compulsion: He fell to the ground and heard a voice (Acts 9:4). This is of great value against heretics who say that no one should be forced into the faith, because Paul was forced. As Augustine says, Paul made more progress in the faith, although he was forcibly converted, than many who came spontaneously. Third, he regards himself as less than the others and believed that he had not attained the virtue of the other apostles.

Therefore, as if giving a reason, he says: I am the least of the apostles. In this regard, he does two things: first, he shows his lowliness; second, he explains the reason for this (see verse 9b).

He explains his lowliness, first, in comparison to the apostles, when he says: for I am the least of the apostles: The least one shall become a clan, and the smallest one a mighty nation (Isaiah 60:22); The greater you are, the more you must humble yourself . And although he is the least in relation to the apostles, it could be said that he is great in comparison to others. Therefore, second, he shows his lowliness in comparison to others, when he says he is unfit not only to be an apostle but even to be called an apostle, although he is called one: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves but our sufficiency is from God (2 Corinthians 3:5).

But it could be said: "O Apostle, no one should say something false for the sake of humility. Therefore, since you are great, why do you call yourself the least?" When he says, because I persecuted the church of God, he shows in what way he is the least and in what way he is not. He calls himself the least when he considers his past deeds. And he says: I am not worthy. Why? Because I persecuted the church of God, which the other apostles did not do: I persecuted the church of God violently (Galatians 1:13); Though I formerly blasphemed and persecuted and insulted him (1 Timothy 1:13). And although by myself I am the least, yet by the grace of God I am not the least. Therefore he says: by the grace of God I am what I am. In this regard, he does two things: first, he commends his condition as to its state; second, as to the execution of his state (see verse 10b).

Therefore he says first: By myself I am nothing, but what I am, I am by the grace of God—that is, from God, not from me: Of this gospel I was made a minister (Ephesians 3:7). And he says, what I am, because without grace a person is nothing: If I have prophetic powers and understand all mysteries (1 Corinthians 13:2). But how he used and executed his state he shows, saying: and his grace.

Here he shows, first, how he used that grace, namely, for good. Therefore he says: his grace toward me was not in vain—that is, it was not idle, because he used it for the purpose for which it was given to him: Lest somehow I should be running in vain (Galatians 2:2). Second, he explains how he exceeded others, adding: on the contrary I worked harder than any of them—that is, harder than any of the other apostles individually. He did this by preaching, for no one preached in so many places and announced Christ as he did. Hence he says: So that from Jerusalem to Illyricum I fully preached (Romans 15:19). He also did this by working, for although he, like the other apostles, could have requested necessary expenses, he chose to provide for his own needs through the labor of his hands, as he says in 2 Thessalonians 3:8: Night and day we have worked with our hands. Finally, he did this by enduring tribulation, for none of the apostles endured such persecutions and tribulations as he mentions in 2 Corinthians 11:23: With far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings. Third, he shows the effectiveness of this use, because this was not from himself alone but from the prompting and help of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, he says: though it was not I alone acting but the grace of God, which is with me, which moves the will to do this: You have brought about for us all our works (Isaiah 26:12); God is at work in you both to will and to work (Philippians 2:13). For God not only infuses grace but also moves us to use the infused graces well, and this is called "cooperating grace."

Whether then it was I or they, so we preach. Here he shows the agreement of the preachers. This can be understood in two ways. First, as confirming what has been said. It is as if someone were to object: "You preach this, but we do not believe you alone, because you are the least of the Apostles." The Apostle replies: "Indeed you should believe me, because I do not preach anything different; whether it was I or the other apostles you saw, they preached that Christ rose and was seen, and you also believed, just as I and those who preached believed—namely, that Christ rose and was seen": Since we have the same spirit of faith (2 Corinthians 4:13). Second, it can be read so that the effectiveness of the apostles' preaching comes from one source: the grace of God. As if to say: Whether I preach or they, the other apostles, preach, we have done this by the help and strength of God’s grace. And so you also have believed, inspired by the Holy Spirit and the grace of God, without which we can do nothing: Without me you can do nothing (John 15:5).

Having built up faith in the resurrection of Christ, the Apostle now proves the future resurrection of the dead by means of Christ's resurrection. First, he proves the future resurrection; second, he shows the nature of those who rise (verse 35); and third, he describes the order of the resurrection (verse 54). Regarding the first point, he does two things: first, he proves the future resurrection of the dead with a reason drawn from Christ's resurrection; second, with a reason drawn from the lives of the saints (verse 29). He proves the resurrection of the dead from Christ's resurrection with this argument: If Christ rose, then the dead will rise. In presenting this argument, he does three things: first, he presents a conditional proposition, namely, if Christ rose, the dead also will rise; second, he proves the first part of this conditional statement (verse 13); and third, he proves that the conditional statement itself is true (verse 20).

First, therefore, he says: I have said that whether I or others—namely, the apostles—preached, this is what you have believed. But if Christ is preached by us as raised from the dead, how can some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? It is as if he is saying: If Christ rose from the dead, as we preach, then no one should doubt the future resurrection of the dead. For we believe that Christ died and rose again (1 Thessalonians 4:13). Hence, it is written: He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to our mortal bodies (Romans 8:10).

But this argument seems invalid, since it appears to argue from a particular case to a general rule. For although Christ, as a particular man, rose by the power of His divinity, it does not follow that other men will rise. To this, some answer that the argument is not from a particular case but from an analogy. They say that since dying and rising belong to Christ according to His human nature, the argument is like saying: "The soul of Socrates is immortal; therefore, all human souls are immortal."

But it seems better to say that the argument is from a cause, because Christ's resurrection is the cause of our resurrection. Therefore, according to one commentary, it should be said: If Christ, who is the efficient cause of our resurrection, has risen, how can you say there is no resurrection? Yet one should not say that He is the efficient cause only in the sense of merit, because by rising He did not merit our resurrection, since He had already attained glory and lived the life of glory (unless, perhaps, the merit for the resurrection of the dead is referred to Christ's death). Neither is He merely the exemplary cause, as some say. Rather, He is both the efficient and exemplary cause. Hence Augustine says in his work on John that “the Word made flesh gives life to souls and raises the dead.” Therefore, it is clear that if Christ rose, the dead also will rise.

On the other hand, an objection can be raised: rising from the dead is a supernatural act, accomplished only by the infinite power of God. Therefore, the resurrection of Christ’s body cannot be the efficient cause of the resurrection of the dead, since Christ’s humanity—His body—is a creature (although Christ Himself, “the man,” cannot be called a mere creature).

The answer is that because the Godhead is in Christ, Christ is the exemplary and efficient cause of the resurrection through His humanity, which acts as an instrument of His divinity. To resolve the objection, it should be noted that the humanity of Christ does not produce an effect of infinite power by its own nature as humanity, but by virtue of being the humanity of the divine Person of Christ.

But another question arises: once a sufficient cause is present, the effect follows immediately. Therefore, if Christ's resurrection is the sufficient cause of the resurrection of the dead, then the dead should have all risen at that time and not been delayed. The answer is that an effect follows from an instrumental cause according to the will of the principal cause. Therefore, since God is the principal cause of our resurrection and Christ’s resurrection is the instrumental cause, our resurrection follows Christ’s resurrection according to God’s own plan, which has appointed it to happen at a specific time.

But if God had not become incarnate, would men still rise? It seems not, because Christ would not have suffered and risen. I answer that this objection is invalid. When something is ordained to happen through a specific cause, we must reason according to the order established by that cause. Therefore, it must be said that God ordained for the resurrection of the dead to occur in this specific way; yet God could still have accomplished it in another way, if He had willed.

Next, when the Apostle argues that if there is no resurrection, then Christ has not risen, he proves that Christ has risen by showing the absurd consequences that would follow if He had not. In this, he does two things: first, he points out these absurdities, and second, he shows why they are absurd.

On the first point, he makes his deduction from the premise that if Christ has not risen, the dead will not rise. If this is so, two unacceptable consequences follow: one is that the Apostle’s preaching is empty and useless, and the other is that the Corinthians' faith is empty. Hence he says, If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain. He says this because it is what he and the other apostles preach and what the Corinthians have believed. Therefore, if Christ has not risen, our preaching is empty—that is, false. This would be a great absurdity, that the truth did not support their preaching, especially since the Apostle says elsewhere, I have not run in vain or labored in vain (Philippians 2:16).

He continues, We are even found to be false witnesses of God. Here he shows why those two consequences are absurd. First, he shows that it is absurd for the apostles' preaching to be empty or false; second, he shows that it is absurd for their faith to be empty (verse 17).

First, it is shown to be absurd because the apostles would be false witnesses. This would not only mean they were saying empty things or speaking falsely against a man, which is a mortal sin, but they would be false witnesses against God, which is sacrilege. For if God did not raise Christ from the dead, they are found to be false witnesses. And if the dead do not rise, then God did not raise Christ from the dead. As Job asks, Will you speak falsely for God? (Job 13:7). This is the worst kind of falsehood: to attribute to God something He did not do and to praise in Him what is not His.

Hence Augustine says, “When something false is praised in God, it is not a lesser but a greater crime than if the truth were slandered.” The reason for this is that our intellect can never praise God so much that it does not fall short of His perfection; our knowledge of God’s truth is always due to His excellence. But if something is attributed to God that He did not do, it suggests that our intellect is greater than God and can conceive of something greater than He is—which is what is being falsely attributed to Him. This is contrary to 1 John 3:20: God is greater than our heart.

But if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile. Here he shows why it would be absurd for their faith to be futile. He demonstrates this with three absurdities that would follow. The first is that falsehood clearly does not have the power to cleanse from sin. But faith does cleanse from sin: He cleansed their hearts by faith (Acts 15:9). Therefore, if their faith is futile—which would be the case if Christ has not risen, because they believed that He did rise—their sins are not forgiven. This is what he means when he says, You are still in your sins.

Because someone might say that although faith does not cleanse sins, they can be cleansed by good works, he adds a second absurdity: that the dead, who cannot be cleansed in the next life, have perished without hope of salvation. And so, as if concluding, he says that those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. They have died in the hope of salvation, in the faith of Christ, but have perished because in the next life there are no meritorious works.

But because someone could still say, “I do not care about sins or about the dead, as long as I have peace and quiet in this life,” he adds a third absurdity. He says, If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. He bases this on the argument that if there is no resurrection of the dead, it follows that humans possess nothing good except in this life alone. If this is so, then those who suffer many evils and tribulations in this life are the most miserable. Therefore, since the apostles and other Christians suffer many tribulations, it follows that they are more miserable than other people, who at least enjoy the good things of this world.

However, two doubts arise concerning this reasoning. The first is that what the Apostle says—that Christians would have hope in this life only—does not seem to be universally true. One could argue that although our bodies possess good things only in this mortal life, our souls can still possess many good things in the next life.

This objection can be answered in two ways. First, if the resurrection of the body is denied, it is difficult, indeed, to maintain the immortality of the soul. For it is clear that the soul is naturally united to the body; its separation from the body is contrary to its nature and happens only incidentally. Hence, a soul separated from its body is in an imperfect state. But it is impossible for something that is natural and essential (the union of soul and body) to be finite and temporary, while something that is against nature and incidental (the separation) is infinite, which would be the case if the soul were to endure forever without the body. This is why the Platonists, when they proposed the soul's immortality, also proposed reincarnation, although this is heretical. Therefore, if the dead do not rise, our hope is indeed only for this life.

Second, it is clear that a person naturally desires his own salvation. But the soul is only a part of the person, not the entire person; my soul is not "I." Therefore, even if the soul obtains salvation in another life, it is not I—or any whole person—who is saved. Furthermore, since a person naturally desires the salvation of the body as well, this natural desire would be frustrated.

The second doubt is that even if bodies do not rise, it seems Christians would not be more miserable than other people, because those who are in sin undergo greater hardships. As Jeremiah 4:5 says, They have labored to commit iniquity, and the wicked say, We have walked difficult paths . But of the good and just it is said, The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace… (Galatians 5:22).

The answer is that evils in this world are not to be sought for their own sake, but only insofar as they are directed toward some good. The apostles and Christians suffered many evils in the world. Therefore, unless these sufferings were directed toward some good, they would indeed be more miserable than other people. Their sufferings must be directed either to a future good or a present good. But they cannot be directed to a future good if there is no resurrection of the dead.

If, on the other hand, their sufferings are directed to a present good, this could be either a good of the intellect or a good of morals. It cannot be for a good of the intellect—as natural philosophers suffered poverty and other evils to know the truth—because if there is no resurrection, their faith would be false, since they preached a future resurrection. And falsehood is not a good of the intellect.

Nor can their sufferings be for a good of morals—as moral philosophers suffered many evils to acquire virtue and fame. If there is no resurrection, it is not considered virtuous or glorious to renounce all pleasant things and undergo punishment, death, and contempt; rather, it is considered folly. And so it is clear that, without the resurrection, Christians would be more miserable than all other people.

Here, the Apostle proves that the conditional statement previously set forth is true: if Christ arose, the dead will rise. He does this in three steps: first, he shows how Christ’s resurrection is related to that of others; second, he shows the order of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:23); and third, he shows the end of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:24). Concerning the first point, he does two things: first, he shows the relationship of Christ’s resurrection to that of others; second, he proves this relationship (1 Corinthians 15:21).

He says, therefore, that since the absurdities mentioned above would follow if Christ has not risen, we must state, to avoid them, that Christ has indeed risen. This is true according to what is stated in the last chapter of Matthew and in other gospel texts.

Christ’s resurrection is related to that of others as the firstfruits are to the harvest that follows, for the firstfruits precede the rest in both time and superiority. Therefore, he says Christ arose not just like the others, but as the firstfruits—that is, first in time and dignity: The first born of the dead (Revelation 1:5). He is the firstfruits, I say, of those who have fallen asleep, meaning the dead who rest in hope of the resurrection. From this, the conditional statement made earlier can be inferred: if Christ, who is the firstfruits of those who sleep, arose, then all others who are asleep will also rise.

However, something seems to contradict this: Christ did not rise as the firstfruits of those who sleep, because Lazarus had been raised by Christ before His passion, and others were raised from the dead in the Old Testament. The answer is that resurrection is twofold. One is to a mortal life, to which Lazarus and the others were raised. The other is to an immortal life, and it is this second kind that the Apostle is speaking about.

But on the other hand, Matthew 27:52 says, Many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. Since this happened before the resurrection of Christ, and it is obvious they did not rise to an immortal life, it seems the first question still remains. I answer that what Matthew says about the resurrection of those souls, he says by anticipation. Although it is written in the section on the passion, they did not rise then, but only after Christ arose.

For as by a man came death, by a man has also come the resurrection of the dead. Here the Apostle proves the relationship he proposed, namely, that Christ is the firstfruits of those who sleep. First, he proves this in general, and second, in particular (1 Corinthians 15:22).

He proves it generally with the following reasoning: God willed to restore human nature, which had been corrupted by a man, because death entered through a man. Therefore, it was fitting for the dignity of human nature that it be restored by a man, which means being brought back to life. It was fitting, then, that just as death entered through a man, Adam, so the resurrection of the dead would be accomplished by a man, Christ: If because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more... (Romans 5:17).

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. Here he proves the same point in particular, saying that as in Adam we all die a bodily death, so too we are all made alive in Christ: As sin came into the world through one man (Romans 5:12). He does not say it came through Eve, which seems to contradict Sirach 25:24: Through her we all die. I answer that death came through Eve suggesting it, but through Adam as its cause. For if Eve alone had sinned, original sin would not have been passed on to their descendants.

When he says that all shall be made alive in Christ, this refers to the good and the bad with the life of nature, but only the good with the life of grace. However, the Apostle here is speaking of a resurrection to a life of nature, to which all shall be made alive. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself (John 5:26), which is the power to grant life: All who are in the tombs will hear his voice (John 5:28).

But each in his own order. Here he shows the order of the resurrection. First, he gives the order itself; second, he explains what he had said (1 Corinthians 15:23).

Therefore, I say that it is true that in Christ shall all be made alive, but differently, because there will be a difference between the head and the members, and a difference between the good and the evil. And therefore he says that each will rise in his own order, meaning in dignity: Those that exist have been instituted by God (Romans 13:1).

He then clarifies this order. Christ is the firstfruits, for He is prior in time and worth, because He had more glory: We have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father (John 1:14). Then, those who belong to Christ will also rise, because they are later in time and worth. They are those who crucified their flesh with its vices. This will happen at His coming: But when the fullness of time came, God sent his Son (Galatians 4:4); I charge you to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 6:14).

He explains who belong to Christ when he says they are those who believed by faith working through love: For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists (Hebrews 11:6). At His coming, both groups will rise. It should be noted, however, that among the other saints there is no order of time, because all will rise in the twinkling of an eye. Instead, there is an order of worth: a martyr will rise as a martyr, an apostle as an apostle, and so on.

Then comes the end. Here he shows the end of the resurrection, which is twofold: one concerns attaining the good, and the other concerns the removal of the wicked (1 Corinthians 15:25). Regarding the first, he does two things: first, he shows that attaining the good consists in adhering to God; second, he shows that it consists in immediate adherence (1 Corinthians 15:24).

He says that then, after this, will come the end of the resurrection. This end will not be a life of bodily and sensual pleasure, as some Jews and Saracens claim, but one of adhering to God through immediate vision and joyful enjoyment. This is what it means to hand over the kingdom to God the Father. Therefore, he says, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father. This means He brings the kingdom—that is, His believers, whom He acquired by His own blood (by your blood you did ransom men for God, Revelation 5:9)—to God the Father. This means bringing them into the sight of God, who is His Creator, inasmuch as Christ is man, and His Father, inasmuch as Christ is God. This is what Philip sought: Lord, show us the Father and we shall be satisfied (John 14:18).

But He will deliver the kingdom in such a way that He does not take it from Himself; indeed, He, the one God with the Father and the Holy Spirit, will reign. Alternatively, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father means when He will show God the Father reigning. For in Scripture, something is said to be done when it first becomes known, and such knowledge is given by Christ: No one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him (Matthew 11:27).

When he has destroyed every rule and every authority and power. Here he shows the immediacy of the adherence mentioned before. As it says in Galatians 4:1, The heir, as long as he is a child, is no better than a slave... but is under guardians and managers. But when he is grown and mature, he is immediately under his father in the home, without a tutor or guardian. The condition of this present life is similar to childhood; therefore, in this life we are under angels as our guardians, inasmuch as they watch over and direct us. But when the kingdom is delivered to God the Father, we will be immediately under God, and all other powers will cease. This is what he means when he says, After he does away with every principality, power and virtue—that is, when all dominion, both human and angelic, has ceased, we shall be immediately under God: The LORD alone will be exalted on that day (Isaiah 2:11); And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor... for they shall all know me, says the LORD (Jeremiah 31:34).

But will the orders of angels not remain distinct? It seems so, regarding the eminence of glory by which one excels another, but not regarding the efficacy of their activity toward us. Therefore, he says that those will be done away with whose names pertain to outward activity, namely, principalities, powers, and virtues. He does not name those who belong to the higher hierarchy, because they are not outwardly active, nor does he name angels, because that is their common name. He does not say dominations will be done away with, because although they are among the outwardly active, they do not perform outward activity but instead direct and command. For it belongs to lords to direct and command, not to act outwardly. Archangels are included with the principalities, for archos is the same as prince.

According to Gregory, these three orders are presented in descending order, because he places principalities above powers, and powers above virtues. But according to Dionysius, they are in ascending order, because he places virtues over powers, and powers over principalities. Alternatively, when every rule and every authority and power is done away with means that it will then be known that they had no power of themselves but from God, from whom are all things.

For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. Here the Apostle shows the end of the resurrection as it relates to the removal of the wicked. He shows this through the destruction of all enemies of Christ. First, he mentions their destruction; second, the perfection of their subjection (1 Corinthians 15:26); and third, the end of this destruction (1 Corinthians 15:28).

First, therefore, he says: I have said that the end will be when He has delivered the kingdom to God the Father. But will Christ have a kingdom in which He should reign? Yes: All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me (Matthew 28:18); and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever (Luke 1:32). He must reign, I say, until he has put all enemies under his feet.

But are they not under His feet now—that is, under Christ’s power? The answer is that the enemies of Christ are now under His power in two ways: either they are converted by Him, like Paul, whom He caused to fall to the ground (Acts 9:3), or Christ accomplishes His own will even through those who act against His will here. So He puts His enemies under His feet by punishing them. But in the future, He will put them under His feet, that is, under Christ’s humanity. For just as the head is understood as Christ’s divinity, because the head of Christ is God (1 Corinthians 11:3), so the feet represent His humanity. We will adore in the place where his feet stood (Psalms 132:5). Thus, the enemies will not only be under the divinity, but also under the humanity of Christ: At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow (Philippians 2:10).

But why does he say, until he has put all his enemies under his feet? Will He not reign after He does that? The answer is that "until" can be taken in two ways. Sometimes it defines a specific time, as if I were to say, "I will not see God until I die," because before then I will not see Him, but after that I shall. Sometimes it is taken to mean an indefinite period, as in Matthew 1:25: He did not know her until she brought forth her son. This does not mean that he knew her only up to the birth of her Son, but that he never knew her afterward either, as Jerome says.

This manner of speaking is used when one intends to exclude only that about which there is doubt. Hence, the Gospel excluded only what might seem doubtful: that Joseph knew the Blessed Virgin before she gave birth. The fact that he did not know her after she gave birth is doubted by no one, given that he saw so many mysteries concerning the child, was so often warned by angels, and witnessed Jesus being adored by the Magi. From this, he could have already known that she was the mother of God. Therefore, the Gospel writer did not need to address this point.

The Apostle speaks in the same way here. The idea that someone should reign while his enemies are not yet subdued might seem doubtful, but that He should reign after His enemies have been subjugated is doubted by no one. Therefore, he excludes the first possibility, saying, Until he puts his enemies under his feet. It is as if to say: it is true that Christ has a kingdom, and although there are some enemies who do not do His will, He nevertheless rules and is putting His enemies under His feet.

The phrase until he puts his enemies under his feet can be understood in another way, so that "until" determines a future time. It is as if to say: He should reign. But when? Until He puts His enemies under His feet. This would mean that He will reign until He puts His enemies under His feet, but after that He will not reign. According to this explanation, "to reign" does not imply merely having a kingdom, but making progress in reigning and increasing the kingdom, specifically regarding the perfect manifestation of Christ's kingdom. It is as if to say: Christ’s kingdom grows gradually as it is manifested and becomes known, until He puts His enemies under His feet. At that point, all enemies will admit that He is reigning, and His kingdom will no longer grow or be further manifested, because it will already be fully manifest.

So, the subjection of all adversaries is clear, and this subjection will be most complete, because even that which is most hostile will be subjected to Him. This final enemy is death, which is the ultimate contrary to life. Therefore, he says, The last enemy to be destroyed is death. Here he does three things: first, he mentions death’s subjection; second, he proves this with an authority (1 Corinthians 15:26); third, he argues from this authority (1 Corinthians 15:26).

He says, therefore: I have said that He has subjected all enemies under His feet. But how? Most completely, I say, because last of all death will be destroyed at the end, for it cannot exist with life when all are made alive through the resurrection: I will be your death, O death (Hosea 13:14); He will swallow up death forever (Isaiah 25:8).

It should be noted that from this word, Origen took the occasion for his error, which appears in his work On First Principles. He claimed that the punishments of the damned are cleansing and not eternal, and that all in hell, including the devil, will eventually be converted to Christ and be saved. He confirms this with the words, until I put my enemies under my feet. He understands "enemies under my feet" as the subjection that occurs when sinners are converted to God, not the subjection by which those who are never converted are subject to Christ as He punishes them in hell. Therefore, Origen says, "It is fitting that He reign, until He puts His enemies under His feet," because at that time all the damned and those in hell will be saved, inasmuch as they will be converted to Him and will serve Him. And not only condemned men, but last of all death—that is, the devil—"will be destroyed." This means not that the devil will cease to exist, but that he will no longer be death, because in the end even the devil himself will be saved. But this is heretical and was condemned by a Council.

Again, it should be noted that the Apostle clearly stated that last of all death will be destroyed in order to resolve two questions that can arise concerning the resurrection. The first is whether Christ could give life to the dead. This is resolved because He has put all His enemies under His feet, even death itself. The second is why He has not raised all at once. The answer is that He must first subject the enemies under His feet, and finally, when death itself is destroyed, all will rise to life. Therefore, He delays, not because He is unable, but so that He might preserve order, because things that are from God are orderly.

He proves that death itself will be subjected to Christ with an authority from Psalm 8:8: Thou hast put all things under his feet—that is, under His humanity, Christ’s. And every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Philippians 2:11); To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear (Isaiah 45:23).

From this authority he argues, saying, But when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection,’ it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. The reasoning is this: The prophet says, you have subjected all things. By saying all things, nothing is excluded except the one who does the subjecting. Therefore, all things, including death, are subjected to Christ. He says, therefore: When it says, all things are subjected to him, namely, Christ as man, it is clear that this excludes Him, namely, the Father, who subjected all things to Him. Putting everything in subjection under his feet (Hebrews 2:8); All power is given to me in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18).

But on the other hand, if the Father subjected all things to the Son, is the Son less than the Father? The answer is that the Father subjected all things to the Son as man, as has been stated, and in this way the Father is greater than the Son. For Christ is less than the Father according to His humanity, but equal according to His divinity. Or it might be said that the Son Himself as God also subjected all things to Himself, because as God He can do all that the Father does: We await a Savior... who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power which enables him even to subject all things to himself (Philippians 3:20).

Then, when he says, When all things are subjected to him, he shows that the end of this resurrection is not found in the humanity of Christ, but that the rational creature will be led further to contemplating the divinity, and in this is our happiness. Therefore, he says, when all things are subjected to him. It is as if to say: God has not yet subjected all things to Christ, but when all things have been subjected to Him, then the Son Himself, according to His humanity, will be subjected to Him who put all things in subjection under Him, namely, the Father. The Father is greater than I (John 14:28). Even now, Christ as man is subjected to the Father, but this will be more manifest then. The reason for this subjection is that God may be all in all. This means that the souls of men will rest entirely in God, and God alone will be their beatitude. For now, life and virtue are in one person and glory in another, but then God will be the life, salvation, virtue, glory, and all things. Alternatively, that God may be all in all means it will then be clear that whatever good we have is from God.

After showing the resurrection of the dead from the resurrection of Christ, the Apostle then shows the resurrection of the dead from the life of the saints. In this regard, he does two things: first, he proves his proposition, and second, he adds an admonition (1 Corinthians 15:33).

He proves his proposition by leading to three absurdities:

1. It is absurd that people’s devotion to baptism should be in vain.
2. It is absurd that the labors of the saints would be in vain (1 Corinthians 15:30).
3. It is absurd that an occasion would be given to indulge in pleasure (1 Corinthians 15:32b).

Regarding the first absurdity, he does two things: first, he presents it, and second, he explains it (1 Corinthians 15:29b).

First, therefore, he says: I have said that the dead rise. Otherwise—that is, if there is no resurrection of the dead as we preach—what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? This can be understood in two ways. One way is that “the dead” is understood to mean the works of sin. They are dead because they lack the life of grace and lead to death: The blood of Christ will purify your conscience from dead works (Hebrews 9:14). According to this view, the words are clear. What do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead—that is, for the washing away of their sins—if they are not going to receive the life of grace?

Alternatively, it can be understood in another way, because some at that time wanted people to be baptized for two reasons: first, so that they might obtain for themselves the forgiveness of sins, and second, they were baptized again for a dead relative, so that he too might be freed from his sins after death. According to this view, the text reads: What do people mean by being baptized for the dead—that is, for their relatives, for whose salvation they were baptized—if there is no resurrection of the dead? However, they can be commended for one thing: they seemed to have faith in the resurrection. But they can be criticized for another: they believed that one person can be baptized for another.

But then a question arises: If one person’s prayers benefit another, why not their baptism? To this, there are two answers. One is that works performed by the living benefit the dead because of the union of charity and faith. Therefore, they benefit only those who die with charity and faith. Hence, neither the prayer nor the baptism of the living benefits unbelievers, yet prayer can help those in purgatory. Another, and better, answer is that good works help the dead not only by virtue of charity but also from the intention of the one who performs them. For example, if I were to say the psalter for someone in purgatory and was bound to say it to make satisfaction for him, it would be profitable as satisfaction only for the one for whom I say it. According to this, it must be said that baptism has no value from our intention but only from the intention of Christ. And the intention of Christ is that baptism should benefit those who are baptized in the faith of Christ.

Then he explains that absurdity, saying: If the dead are not raised at all. This explanation seems to agree more with the second interpretation given above. As if to say: Why are they baptized for them—that is, for the dead—if the dead do not rise? But if it is explained according to the first interpretation, then it can be said: If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf—that is, for their sins—since their sins are not forgiven?

Why am I in peril every hour? Here he presents the second absurdity. In this regard, he does two things: first, he mentions the absurdity in general, and second, in particular.

He says, therefore: Not only are some baptized in vain for the forgiveness of sins, but we also suffer in vain if there is no resurrection of the dead. And this is what he says: Why are we also, the holy apostles, in peril—that is, enduring dangers—every hour? As it is written, In danger at sea, in danger from false brethren (2 Corinthians 11:26). For it is clear that the saints expose themselves to tribulation and affliction because of the hope of eternal life, as it says in Romans 5:11: Not only so, but we also rejoice in God through the Lord Jesus Christ.

Therefore, if there is no resurrection of the dead, hope completely vanishes. Consequently, they have suffered in vain if there is no resurrection. This conclusion is not undermined by the argument that the separated soul will be rewarded, because, as has been proved above, it cannot be proved that the soul is immortal.

Then when he says, I die every day, he enumerates the dangers specifically: first, regarding his own person, and second, regarding the place (1 Corinthians 15:31–32).

Therefore, he describes the dangers to his own person. He says, I die every day—that is, I suffer not just any dangers, but even dangers of death, because I am in danger of death daily: For your sake we are slain all day long (Psalms 44:22). The Apostle shows that this was said in the person of the apostles: Always carrying in the body the death of Jesus (2 Corinthians 4:10). He says this is for your glory—that is, so that I may acquire the glory I expect from your conversion to the faith: You are my glory and my joy (1 Thessalonians 2:20), which I have—that is, hope to have—in Christ Jesus our Lord, through the charity of Christ.

Another version of the text reads, “by the glory,” and in that case, “by the glory” is an oath. It is as if to say: I swear by your glory which you await, which is God. Or as if to say: I swear by God, whom I have in hope in Christ Jesus—that is, by His passion. From this, it appears that even the Apostle swore, and that among those who are mature, swearing is not a sin.

Then when he says, What do I gain... if I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, he specifies the dangers regarding the place. It should be noted that in Acts 19, it says that when Saint Paul had converted many to the faith at Ephesus, some stirred up the people against him, so that he did not dare to go out into the theater, and he endured many dangers. Therefore, he perhaps mentions this because he had suffered there.

He says, therefore: What do I gain? If, “humanly speaking”—that is, according to reason, which makes one human—I conclude by disputing about the resurrection that a person does not die like a beast, then I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, meaning with men living in a beastly manner. Alternatively, the meaning could be: What do I gain if I have fought with beasts at Ephesus—and I say this not from divine revelation but “humanly speaking,” that is, from human instinct—if I have endured such perils?

Then when he says, Let us eat and drink, he presents the third absurdity: if there is no resurrection of the dead, an occasion would be given to indulge in pleasures. It is as if to say: If there is no other life, we are foolish to afflict ourselves. Instead, let us eat and drink—that is, use delights and enjoy pleasures. As it says, No one has been known to return from Hades , and, Come, let us enjoy the good things that exist . For tomorrow—that is, soon—we die; for we will completely perish if the dead do not rise.

Then when he says, Do not be deceived, he concludes with a warning based on the preceding arguments, directed first toward the weak, and second, toward the mature and just (1 Corinthians 15:33–34).

Regarding the first group, the weak, he does two things. First, he calls for their attention, saying, Do not be deceived. It is as if to say: It has been stated that if there is no resurrection, it would be foolish not to indulge in lustful and sensual things. Therefore, so that you are not tempted to such things, do not be deceived by those who deny the resurrection. Let no one disqualify you (Colossians 2:18). Second, he gives the reason for this attentiveness, saying, Bad company ruins good morals. As if to say: Do not be deceived, because the bad speech of those who deny the resurrection corrupts good morals: Their talk will eat its way like gangrene (2 Timothy 2:17). Jerome says that this was taken from the sayings of the Gentiles and is a verse from a certain Menander. From this, he says, we have an argument that it is sometimes permissible in Sacred Scripture to use the authorities of the Gentiles.

Then when he says, Come to your right mind and sin no more, he presents an admonition for the mature. For someone could say that the weak should be careful in their conversations with false teachers, because they are easily deceived, but the mature cannot be so easily deceived. The Apostle, however, wants even the mature to be cautious. Hence, he does two things in this regard.

First, he calls for their attention, saying, “Come to your right mind, you just ones, and watch”—that is, you who are regarded as just, be careful. As it is written: Watch, therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord will come (Matthew 24:42); and, Blessed is he who is awake keeping his garments (Revelation 16:15). Second, he gives a twofold reason, saying, and sin no more.

One reason is for their own sake, for no one is so mature that he does not need to be wary of sin. But idleness and inactivity frequently lead to sin; hence, so that they do not sin, he urges them to be vigilant. Therefore, he says, sin no more: Remember the Lord our God all your days, and refuse to sin . He presents another reason for the benefit of others, because the mature are concerned not only for themselves but also for others, so that they are not deceived. This is what he means by, For some have no knowledge of God—that is, they do not have a correct faith: Being ignorant of the righteousness of God, they did not submit to God’s righteousness (Romans 10:3).

And the phrase I say this to your shame means that you should be careful. Alternatively, it is “to your shame” because it is shameful for you, who are regarded as wise and instructed in the faith, that some among you are ignorant of God—that is, they do not have the correct faith.

Having proved the resurrection of the dead, the Apostle now shows the quality and manner of those who rise. In this regard, he does two things: first, he raises a question about the quality of those who rise; second, he answers it (1 Corinthians 15:36).

Regarding the resurrection, there have been two errors. Some have absolutely denied the future resurrection of the dead. Since they considered only the principles and capabilities of nature, they saw that no one could return to life or a blind person recover sight according to these natural laws. Therefore, they absolutely denied the resurrection. From their mouths, it says in Wisdom 2:5, "Our allotted time is the passing of a shadow"; and in Wisdom 2:2, "We are born of nothing."Job 14:14 asks, "Do you think a dead man will live again?"

Others, on the other hand, have said there will be a resurrection, but that people will rise to the same manner of living and to the same activities. Even some philosophers have proposed this, saying that after many years Plato will rise again and have the same scholars in Athens that he once had. The Sadducees also asserted this in Matthew 22:29 regarding the woman with seven husbands. Hence, they asked, "In the resurrection, to which of the seven will she be wife?" The Saracens, too, claim that after the resurrection they will have wives and voluptuous, bodily pleasures, as in Job 20:17: "He will not move upon the rivers, the streams flow with honey and curds." Against these errors, Matthew 22:30 says that "they will be as the angels in heaven."

Therefore, the Apostle raises two questions here. The first is, "How will the dead rise?" That is, how is it possible that the dead, who are now dust, can rise? The second is, "With what kind of body will they come?" This is as if to ask, "Will they rise with the same kind of body that we have now?"

He answers these two questions when he says, "You foolish man!" First, he answers the second question; then, he answers the first (1 Corinthians 15:44b). To understand what the Apostle presents in this first part, we must investigate what he intends. In this section, the Apostle intends to show that the dead will rise and that their substance will be the same. Here he does three things:

1. He presents analogies.
2. He applies them (1 Corinthians 15:42).
3. He proves his point (1 Corinthians 15:44b).

Regarding the first point, he does two things: first, he proposes analogies within a single species; second, he proposes them across diverse species (1 Corinthians 15:39).

Regarding the first point, it should be noted that we see within one and the same species that a thing has diverse qualities and forms on its way to generation. For example, a grain has one form and quality when it is planted, another when it shoots up, and yet another when it is a plant. From this analogy, the Apostle intends to show the quality of those who rise. Therefore, in this regard he does three things:

1. He compares the process of sowing to growing.
2. He shows the difference in quality between what is sown and what grows (1 Corinthians 15:37).
3. He identifies the cause of the quality in what grows (1 Corinthians 15:38).

He says, therefore, "You foolish man!" But on the other hand, it says in Matthew 5:22, "Whoever says to his brother, 'You fool,' shall be liable to hell." The answer is that God forbids saying "you fool" or "stupid" to your brother in anger, but not for the sake of correction. Now, the reason he says "foolish" is that this objection against the resurrection proceeds from the principles of human wisdom, which is only wisdom as long as it is subject to divine wisdom. But when a person departs from God, he falls back into foolishness. Hence, when someone contradicts divine wisdom, the Apostle calls him foolish.

It is as if he is saying: "You foolish man! Do you not experience every day that what you sow in the earth does not come to life unless it first dies—that is, decays?" As it says in John 12:24, "Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone." The Apostle seems to be making this comparison: when a person's body is put in a tomb, it is a form of sowing; but when it rises, it is a coming to life.

From this, some have supposed that the resurrection of the dead is a natural process, since the Apostle here compares it to the sprouting of a seed, which is natural. They believed that in the dust into which human bodies decompose, there were certain active, seminal powers for the resurrection of those bodies. But this does not seem to be true. The decomposition of human bodies into their elements happens in the same way as for other composite bodies. Therefore, the dust into which human bodies decompose has no more active power than any other dust. In ordinary dust, there is no evidence of any active power to form a human body; that power exists only in a man's seed.

However, the dust into which human bodies are reduced differs from other dust only according to God's plan, insofar as this dust is ordained by divine wisdom for human bodies to be formed from it again. Therefore, the active cause of the resurrection is God alone, even though He may use the service of angels to collect the dust. This is why the Apostle, when explaining the manner of the resurrection later, attributes it to Christ's power to raise, not to any active power in the dust. Therefore, the Apostle does not intend to prove here that the resurrection is natural. Instead, he intends to show through certain examples that the quality of resurrected bodies is not the same as that of dying bodies. He begins by showing that the quality of the seed and of the sprouting plant are not the same, as will be made clear from what follows.

For when he says, "and what you sow," he shows that the quality of the seed is different from the quality of the plant that sprouts. Hence he says, "what you sow is not the body which is to be"; that is, you do not plant it as it will be. Explaining this, he says, "but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain." A bare kernel is sown, but what sprouts is fashioned as a plant, or an ear of corn, and so on. Similarly, the human body will have a different quality in the resurrection than it has now, as will be explained later.

Yet there is a difference between the resurrection of the human body and the sprouting of a seed. The very same body, numerically, will rise, but it will have a different quality. As the Apostle says later (1 Corinthians 15:53), "For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable," and as Job says (Job 19:27), "And my eyes shall behold, and not another." But in the sprouting of a seed, there is neither the same quality nor the same numerical body; it is only the same in species. Therefore, when speaking about the seed, the Apostle said, "what you sow is not the body which is to be," giving us to understand that it is not numerically the same. And in this, the work of nature falls short of the work of God. The power of nature restores what is the same in species, but not what is numerically the same; God's power, however, can restore even what is numerically the same.

And so, even from what is stated here, we can find proof that the future resurrection is not impossible, as the foolish objector claimed. For if nature can restore something of the same species from what is dead, how much more can God restore the numerically same thing—because whatever nature can do is a work of God. For nature receives from God its ability to do this.

Then, describing the quality of the new plant, he attributes it first to God, and second, to the order of nature.

First, he says, "God gives it a body as he has chosen," because it proceeds from an ordinance of the divine will that from a particular seed, a particular plant is produced. This plant is like the body of the seed, for the ultimate fruit of a plant is the seed. Therefore, he attributes this to the activity of God, as it says earlier (1 Corinthians 12:6), "It is the same God who inspires them all in every one." This can be considered in the following way. It is clear that natural things act for a fixed end without having knowledge of that end; otherwise, they would not always, or for the most part, attain the same end. But it is also clear that nothing lacking knowledge can tend toward a fixed end unless it is directed by one who has knowledge, just as an arrow tends to a fixed target only by the direction of the archer. Therefore, just as someone who saw an arrow moving directly toward a definite target would immediately know that it was directed by an archer, so also when we see natural things tending toward definite ends without knowledge, we can know for certain that they are acting under the will of some director, whom we call God. And so the Apostle says, "God gives to the seed a body"—that is, He produces a plant from the seed—"as he has chosen."

But again, so that no one might believe that such natural effects arise solely from God's will without the activity and order of nature, he adds, "and to each kind of seed its own body." For example, an olive tree is produced from an olive seed, and wheat from a seed of wheat. Hence, it says in Genesis 1:11, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, each according to its kind." Thus, in the resurrection, there will also be a different quality of the resurrected body, which will be proportionate to the merits of the person who died.