[294] poiei.
[295] prattousi.
[296] Epiphanius relates the same thing of the followers of Cerinthus, another section of the Gnostics, and says it was continued in his time by a kind of tradition in Asia Minor and in Galatia. Hær. xxviii. §. 6. [The author justly derides this custom and the endeavor to explain the passage as a reference to it. Yet not a few of the soundest expositors hold that the Apostle was referring to the practice of vicarious baptism, not that he approved of it but as an argument ex concessu. See the vindication of it in Hodge (in lo). To the same effect DeWette, Meyer, Stanley, Alford, Heinrici, Beet, and the Principal Edwards. On the other hand Canon Evans (in Bible Commentary) contends strenuously for the interpretation of the Greek Fathers, Theophylact, Theodoret, etc., and heartily approves of Chrysostom's scornful repudiation of the monstrous superstition. He insists that vicarious baptism in its legitimate issues must lead to something like salvation by proxy. Then he asks, "Now if such a superstition, even in the germ, had appeared in Corinth before the date of this epistle, would not Paul have come down upon it with all his thunder? Would he not have devoted a whole chapter to its extinction?" To me there seems but one answer to these questions. If so, then the Apostle could not referred to the practice, even in the way of an argumentum ad hominem. C.]
[297] arachnidia diakoptontes.
[298] rheseos.
[299] Probably Easter Eve. Vid. Bingham's Antiquities, ii. 6. s. 7. S. Cyril, Lect. 19, 1.
[300] suneskiasmenos.
[301] See before, Hom. 23. §. 3.
[302] i.e., the very act of immersion and emersion affirms the spiritual death and resurrection of thine own body. cf. Rom. vi. 3-5. as quoted below, and the parallel places.
[303] [Chrysostom's explanation of this famous crux, though followed by Erasmus, Cor. a Lap. and Wordsworth, has not met general acceptance. But I have never seen any that is better. C.]
[304] [It would seem (although not certainly) from the author's mode of expression as if he supposed that the reference was to an actual conflict in the arena, but the prevailing view is that the phrase is metaphorical, partly because as a Roman citizen the Apostle could not be legally subjected to that punishment, partly because so remarkable a deliverance could hardly fail to be recorded in the book of Acts, and partly because no reference is made to anything of this kind in the long enumeration of his trials in the eleventh chapter of Second Corinthians. The term was often used by the ancients figuratively for contests with enraged men. Its employment by the Apostle gives us a lively picture of the perils to which he was exposed. Ignatius (not Polycarp, as Beet says) in his Epistle to the Romans borrows this phrase, saying "From Syria even unto Rome I am fighting with beasts, both by land and sea, night and day, being bound to ten leopards, i.e., a band of soldiers." C.]
[305] [This is an exact translation of the Greek which Chrysostom quotes accurately. It is a fair specimen of the way in which the translators of the Septuagint not infrequently turn the sense of Holy Writ into nonsense. The Hebrew of the verse as given in the Authorized Version correctly, is, "And it was revealed in mine ears by the Lord of Hosts." And yet it is contended by not a few that the Hebrew text should be amended by the aid of the ancient versions! C.]
[306] dikaios.
[307] Alluding perhaps to the story of Bellerophon.
Homily XLI.
1 Cor. xv. 35, 36
But some one will say, How are the dead raised? and with what manner of body do they come? Thou foolish one, that which thou thyself 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 saith, "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 ye 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 hath 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 hath been wasted, which hath 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 thou thyself 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 hath 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," (Philip. iii. 2.) 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 saith, "O foolish one, that which Thou sowest:" i.e., "from thyself thou hast the proof of these things, by what thou doest every day, and doubtest thou yet? Therefore do I call thee foolish because of the things daily done by thine own self thou art ignorant, and being thyself an artificer of a resurrection, thou doubtest concerning God." Wherefore very emphatically he said, "what Thou sowest [308] ," thou who art mortal and perishing. [309]
And see how he uses expressions appropriate to the purpose he had in view: thus, "it is not quickened," saith 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." Seest thou, 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 doth 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 abideth by itself alone: but if it die, it beareth much fruit:" (John xii. 24.) thence also Paul, drawing this example, said not, "it doth 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 corn.) 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.
[3.] Ver. 37. "And he who soweth, soweth not that body that shall be [310] ."
For the things before spoken meet the question, "how they are raised;" but this, the doubt, "with what manner of body they come." But what is, "thou sowest not that body which shall be?" Not an entire ear of corn, nor new grain. For here his discourse no longer regards the resurrection, but the manner of the resurrection, what is the kind of body which shall rise again; as whether it be of the same kind, or better and more glorious. And he takes both from the same analogy, intimating that it will be much better.
But the heretics, considering none of these things, dart in upon us and say, "one body falls and another body rises again. How then is there a resurrection? For the resurrection is of that which was fallen. But where is that wonderful and surprising trophy over death, if one body fall and another rise again? For he will no longer appear to have given back that which he took captive. And how can the alleged analogy suit the things before mentioned?" Why, it is not one substance that is sown, and another that is raised, but the same substance improved. Else neither will Christ have resumed the same body when He became the first-fruits of them that rise again: but according to you He threw aside the former body, although it had not sinned, and took another. Whence then is that other? For this body was from the Virgin, but that, whence was it? Seest thou to what absurdity the argument hath come round? For wherefore shows He the very prints of the nails? Was it not to prove that it is that same body which was crucified, and the same again that rose from the dead? And what means also His type of Jonah? For surely it was not one Jonah that was swallowed up and another that was cast out upon dry land. And why did He also say, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up?" For that which was destroyed, the same clearly He raised again. Wherefore also the Evangelist added, that "He spake of the temple of His body." (John ii. 19, 21.)
What is that then which he saith, "Thou sowest not the body that shall be?" i.e. not the ear of corn: for it is the same, and not the same; the same, because the substance is the same; but not the same, because this is more excellent, the substance remaining the same but its beauty becoming greater, and the same body rising up new. Since if this were not so, there were no need of a resurrection, I mean if it were not to rise again improved. For why did He at all pull down His house, except He were about to build it more glorious?
This now, you see, he said to them who think that it is utter corruption [311] . Next, that none again might suspect from this place that another body is spoken of, he qualifies the dark saying, and himself interprets what he had spoken, not allowing the hearer to turn his thoughts from hence in any other direction. What need is there then of our reasonings? Hear himself speaking, and explaining the phrase, "Thou sowest not the body that shall be." For he straightway adds, "but a bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other kind;" i.e., it is not the body that shall be; not so clothed, for instance; not having a stalk and beard, but "a bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other kind."
Ver. 38. "But God giveth it a body even as it pleased Him."
"Yes," saith one, "but in that case it is the work of nature." Of what nature, tell me? For in that case likewise God surely doeth the whole; not nature, nor the earth, nor the rain. Wherefore also he making these things manifest, leaves out both earth and rain, atmosphere, sun, and hands of husbandmen, and subjoins, "God giveth it a body as it pleased Him." Do not thou therefore curiously inquire, nor busy thyself with the how and in what manner, when thou hearest of the power and will of God.