Leaves from St. John Chrysostom

by Saint John Chrysostom

And the sower does not sow the body which shall be. That which has been said so far is to answer the objection, ‘How shall they rise again?’ this is directed to the question, ‘What sort of body will they have?’ Now what is, Thou sowest not the body which shall be?—not a full ear of corn, nor new grain. For here they were not disputing the resurrection, but the manner of the resurrection, what sort of body the risen one should be, whether like our present one, or more perfect and splendid, and he embraces both points in the same example, and shows that it is a much more perfect one. But heretics, admitting none of these things, retort by saying that it is one body which is sown and another which is risen. How, then, could it be a resurrection since a resurrection refers to something sown? What is there wonderful or awful about the victory over death, if one thing is sown and another thing rises again? Death would not seem to be giving back the trophy which he took. How would the illustration be carried out in what they say? Not one substance is sown and another raised up, but the same substance in an improved condition. Supposing that Christ did not resume the same body when He became the first fruits of the risen; but according to you He cast off His former body although it was without sin, and took another. Whence, then, did this other come from? The first was from the Virgin. Whence the second? Do you see what an unnatural argument it is? Why did He show the marks of the nails? Was it not because He wished to prove that the same body which was crucified had also risen again? How does the sign of Jonas affect him? I presume that it was not one Jonas who was swallowed up, and another who was washed to land again? And what were His words? Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again. It is plain that He did raise up this temple when destroyed. Therefore, the Evangelist went on to say that He was speaking of the temple of His body. Now, what does St. Paul say? Thou sowest not the body which shall be; that is, not the ear of corn, which is the same and not the same: the same as being the same substance, and not the same inasmuch as it is perfected, and whereas the same substance remains, it rises in renewed vigour. If this were not the case, He would not have required a resurrection at all, unless He had meant to raise up something better. Why, indeed, should He dissolve the house if He did not intend to make it a more striking dwelling-place? This, therefore, St. Paul said in answer to those who look upon it as corruptible. Moreover, lest any man should imagine that he means another body, he softens the difficulty, and himself interprets it so that his hearer should not in any way bring the wisdom of the world to bear upon the point. What need is there, then, of our arguments? Listen to his interpretation of the words, Thou sowest not the body which shall be, to which he added pertinently, but bare grain, as of wheat, or of some of the rest. That is to say, thou sowest not the body which shall be: the corn, for instance, as we look upon it, with stalk and ear, but bare grain, as of wheat, or of some of the rest. And God giveth it a body as He wills. ‘Granted,’ you say, ‘but in that case the work of nature comes in.’ Tell me, what sort of nature? Here it is God Who works everything, not nature, nor soil, nor rain. Hence He makes this clear, and leaving earth, rain, air, sun, and the labour of the agriculturist out of the question, adds: God giveth it a body as He willeth. Seek not, therefore, to understand or to scrutinise the why and the how, when you hear that God’s power and good pleasure come into play. And to each of the seeds its own body. Why then another? He gives each his own. So that when St. Paul says, Thou sowest not the body which shall be, he does not mean that He raises up something else of a different substance, but something better and more splendid: To each one of the seeds its own substance.

· · · · · · ·

The Resurrection in Creation.
(Homilies on First Epistle to Corinthians, xvii., vol. ii., p. 199.)

· · · · · · ·

Let no man disbelieve in the Resurrection, but if any man be in doubt, let him consider what great and wondrous things God made out of nothing, and receive them as a pledge of it. That, indeed, which has already taken place is much more marvellous and awe-inspiring. For, consider, He took the earth and moulded it, and made man and earth which was not before. How, then, did earth become man? How did the earth come out of nothing? How all those things proceeding from the earth, the endless families of unreasoning animals, of seeds and plants, which came forth without travail, without rains falling upon them, with no apparent cultivation, neither oxen nor plough nor anything else contributing towards their production. On this account He brought forth in the beginning, from that which was without life and without substance, such great things, both of the physical and animal creation, in order that He might teach you from the first the doctrine of the Resurrection. For this is far more difficult than the Resurrection. It is not indeed an equivalent proof of power to rekindle a smouldering flame and to light a fire by invisible means; it is not the same thing to restore a dilapidated house and to build one from the foundations. In the one case, if there was nothing else, there was material to work from; but in the other not even that. Consequently, He began by the more difficult thing, in order that you might receive that which was easier. I say more difficult, not that it was so to God, but according to our manner of reasoning. For nothing is hard to God; and just as the sculptor who makes one statue can as easily produce a thousand, so it is as easy to God to create a thousand endless worlds, or, rather, as easy as it is to you to think of a city or countless worlds, and indeed much more so. You spend a little time upon the thought, but it is not so with God. In the same proportion as stones are heavier than the swiftest birds, or rather than this mind of ours, so much is our mind removed from God’s swiftness of action. Have you wondered at His power with regard to the earth? Consider again how the heavens were made from nothing, the countless stars, the sun and moon: none of these things were previously in being. Again, tell me how, after they were made, they remained in place, and on what they rested? What was their basis, and what is the earth’s basis? And what comes after the earth? What is that something? Do you see to what a giddy height the light of your reason leads you if you do not hold eagerly to the faith and to the inscrutable power of the Creator? If you will make a guess from human things, you will shortly be able to give wings to your reason. ‘What human things?’ you ask. See you not what potters do? How they remould a broken and shapeless thing into a vessel; how melters make gold and iron and brass out of earth? Again, how others who manipulate glass transform sand into one compact and transparent body? Let me mention dyers of leather, who dress garments: they produce one piece after the other, which they have received, with the dye. Again, as to our own generation: is not the seed, formless and shapeless at first, implanted in the mother’s womb? Whence, then, comes so wonderful a formation of the living man? And what about wheat? Is not a mere seed put into the ground? And does it not rot after it has been put there? Whence come the ear of corn and the stalk and all the rest? Does not a small grain of fig, which is often scattered into the earth, take root and put forth branches and fruit? You receive each one of these things, and do not trouble yourself about them, but would subject God alone, Who disposes of our bodies, to scrutiny! What can justify such a demand?

These and such like things are what we say to heathens, for I need no argument with those who are convinced of the Scriptures. For if you were able to understand all that He does, how would God be more than a man? Indeed there are many men whom we fail to understand. But if this happens to us in the case of men, and we do not grasp them, how much more are we to abstain from scrutinising the wisdom of God and from fathoming His reasons—the former, because He Who acts is worthy of confidence; the latter, because the acts themselves are above reasonings. God is not so abject as to do only those things which you, in the weakness of your reasonings, are able to encompass. For, if you cannot grasp a mechanic’s work, how much less that of God the Sovereign Architect! Therefore, do not disbelieve the Resurrection, for you will be so much the further away from the future hope. But what clever thing do opponents say, or rather what exceedingly foolish thing? ‘How,’ they ask, ‘when the body has been mixed with earth, and become earth, and it again has been changed into something else, can it rise again?’ This seems to you to be impracticable, but not so to the Eye which never sleeps, for to It all things are laid bare. In that corruption you see no distinction, but He knows everything; you, again, are ignorant concerning your neighbour’s heart: He is familiar with all. Since, then, you do not know how God raises from the dead, you doubt that He does raise, and will doubt that He knows what is in the human mind; for neither are these things apparent to our bodily eyes. If, indeed, in the case of the body, matter is visible even if it be dissolved—but those conceptions are invisible—therefore, shall He Who is perfectly cognisant of invisible things not see the visible ones and not easily raise up the body? No one will say so! Do not disbelieve in the Resurrection, for this disbelief is in truth a diabolical temptation, and the devil urges it, not only that the Resurrection may be doubted, but also that he may dissolve and destroy virtuous actions. For if a man imagines that he is not to rise again, and not to give an account of his works, he will not easily be righteous, and not being righteous, he will thoroughly mistrust the Resurrection. Each paves the way for the other: wickedness comes from want of faith, and want of faith from wickedness. For when a conscience has burdened itself with much wickedness, and since it is not willing to provide itself with consolation by change to a better course, in fear and anguish at the future punishment, it seeks to ease itself in unbelief. If you say there is neither Resurrection nor Judgment, another man’s comment is: ‘Then I shall give no account of my actions’. But what are Christ’s words? You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. In truth, God would not have worked things so great if He had intended not to raise us up again, but to dissolve and annihilate us: He would not have stretched the heavens above our heads, nor the earth under our feet, nor have made all other things for this brief period of life only. But if He has done this for the life which now is, what will He not do for the life to come? If there is to be no future life, then are we far less considered, according to our present condition, than those things which were called into existence for our sakes. For heavens, and earth, and ocean, and rivers are more abiding than we, as also some unreasoning animals: the crow, the elephant, and many others are much longer lived than we. Our life is short and full of labour: it is not so with them, but they have a long life free from despondency and care. Tell me, how is this?—has He made the servants happier than their masters? I repeat it, do not reason in this way, nor humble your intellect, nor disregard the riches of God, having so great a Master. It was God’s design from the beginning to make you immortal, but you were not willing. The being with God, the living a life without suffering, or grief, or care, or labour, or any other anxiety,—all this pointed to immortality. Adam had no need of clothes, nor of shelter, nor of any other protection, but he was more like an angel, and he had a fore-knowledge of many things to come, and was endued with much wisdom. He knew what God had done in secret, as to the creation of woman, and so he said, This is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh. Afterwards came labour, and sweat, and shame, and cowardice, and bondage: then there was neither grief nor pain, nor effort. But he did not remain in this high state.

· · · · · · ·

Resurrection confirmed by Signs which followed.
(Homilies on the New Testament,[12] viii., t. iii., p. 89.)

· · · · · · ·

The reason, beloved brethren, why we read immediately after the Crucifixion and the Resurrection of the wonders worked by the Apostles is that we may have a clear and unambiguous proof of the Resurrection. You did not look upon Him rising from the dead with your bodily eyes, but you see Him rising with the eyes of faith. You did not look upon Him rising with this physical eyesight of yours, but you will see Him rising through those signs. For their manifestation will lead you to faith’s contemplation. Hence the working of signs in His name was a much greater and stronger testimony than seeing Him as He rose from the dead. Would you know how this establishes the Resurrection more firmly than if it had been seen by all men with their bodily eyes? Listen with attention, for many men make this objection and say, ‘Why, when rising from the dead, did He not show Himself immediately to the Jews?’ But this argument is trifling and vain. If He had meant to enforce faith upon them, He would not have omitted to appear to all men after the Resurrection. Now He showed that He did not mean to put force upon them by appearing after the Resurrection: in the case of Lazarus, He raised up this man, who had been four days dead, and was corrupt and stinking, and He made him, who was bound, come forth before all; and not only He did not induce them to believe, but He provoked them to anger. When they came they wished to put Him to death on this account. Now, if they were faithless when He raised up another, would they not also have been mad with Him if He had shown them Himself risen from the dead? If they had not been able to accomplish anything, they would still have been guilty of impiety. Thus, wishing to save them from a useless madness, He concealed Himself. For He would have made them deserving of chastisement if He had appeared to them after the Cross. Consequently, to spare them, He hid Himself from their eyes, but manifested Himself through signs. Hearing Peter say, In the Name of Jesus Christ arise and walk, was not a less thing than seeing Him rise again. And that this was a great proof of the Resurrection, and more conducive to faith than the first, that seeing signs taking place in His Name was better able to persuade the minds of men than the sight of Him risen is evident from what I am going to say. Christ rose and showed Himself to the disciples. Yet one of their number, Thomas, who was called Didymus, was unbelieving, and he demanded to put his hands into the marks of the nails. Now, if that disciple, who had spent three years with Him, who had partaken of his Lord’s table, witnessed great signs and wonders, and heard his Lord’s words, did not at first believe when he even beheld Him risen, until he felt the marks of the nails and of the wounds, tell me how would the whole world have believed it if it had seen Him risen? Who would say as much? But I will give you further proof than this that signs were more persuasive than the physical sight of the risen Lord. The crowd hearing Peter’s words to the lame man, In the Name of Jesus Christ arise and walk, three thousand, and five thousand believed in Christ; on the other hand, the single disciple seeing Christ risen was unbelieving. Do you see that the signs much more furthered faith in the Resurrection? In presence of the one His own disciple doubted, whereas in contemplating the signs even enemies were persuaded. Hence they were more powerful and clearer; they attracted men and won them over to the Resurrection. And why do I speak of Thomas? For understand fully that neither were the other disciples persuaded by their first sight of Jesus risen; but condemn them not, dear brethren. If Christ did not reproach them, neither should you, for the disciples saw a strange and wonderful thing; they saw Him rising the First-Born from the dead. Signs so great as this are wont at first to stupify, until in process of time they take root in the souls of the faithful. Now, this is what happened to the disciples. Whilst Christ risen from the dead spoke to them the words, Peace be to you, the Evangelist says they were troubled and frightened, imagining they saw a spirit, and Jesus said to them, Why are ye fearful? And after that He showed them His Hands and Feet, and He said to them, whom joy and wonder made unbelieving, Have you anything to eat? wishing to convince them through these material things of the Resurrection. ‘Do neither My Side nor My Wounds persuade you, then let even food persuade you.’ That you may clearly understand that He said, Have you anything to eat here? in order to show them they beheld not a vision, nor a spirit, nor a phantom, but a true and substantial resurrection, consider how Peter is convinced of it in this very way. For in saying that God had raised Him from the dead and had given Him to appear in a glorious form to us His preordained witnesses, he added, as a proof of the Resurrection: we who ate and drank with Him. This was why whenever Christ raised anyone from the dead, in order to prove the Resurrection, He said: Give him to eat. When, therefore, you hear that He offered Himself to them in the body during forty days, appearing to them and living with them, understand His reason for eating with them. It was not that He required food, but He wished to strengthen the weakness of the disciples; whence it is plain that the signs and wonders of the Apostles were the greatest proof of the Resurrection. Therefore, His own words were: Amen, Amen, I say to you, he who believeth in Me shall do the works which I do, and greater works than I do. For since the Cross coming between had scandalised many, He required even greater signs after it. If, indeed, Christ in ending His life had remained in death and the tomb, and had not risen, as the Jews pretend, nor ascended into heaven, not only were greater signs not required to come after the cross, but even the former ones should have been blotted out. Follow my argument attentively, as what I have said is an irrefutable proof of the Resurrection, and therefore I repeat it. First, Christ did wonders, He raised the dead and cleansed lepers, and cast out devils: after this He was crucified, and, as the lawless Jews assert, He did not rise from the dead. Now, how are we to answer them? That if He did not rise, how after this did greater signs take place in His Name? No living man at his death ever worked greater wonders after it, but in this case they were greater after it, both in manner and in matter. They were greater in matter, for never had the shadow of Christ raised from the dead, yet the shadows of the Apostles did many things of this kind. And they were greater in manner when at His command signs took place; but after the crucifixion His servants, using His awful and all-holy Name, did greater and more wonderful things, so that their power shone forth more conspicuously than His. For it was much more striking that another should do these things by invoking His Name than that He should command them to be done. See you, dear brethren, how the signs of the Apostles after Christ’s Resurrection were greater both in manner and in matter? Therefore, the proof of the Resurrection is irrefutable. As I was saying, and now repeat, if Christ had died and not risen again, wonders also should have ceased and been extinguished: now, not only were they not quenched, but they became more evident and more glorious after these things. And if Christ had not risen, others would not have worked signs so great in His Name. One and the same power did wonders both before and after the Cross, first through Himself and afterwards through His disciples; but the greater and more wonderful signs took place after the Cross in order that the proof of the Resurrection might be the clearer and more renowned. ‘And how,’ the unbeliever asks, ‘is it certain that signs did take place?’ ‘How is it certain that Christ was crucified?’ ‘From Holy Scripture,’ you answer. And it is also evident from Holy Scripture both that signs took place then and that Christ was crucified, for they say one and the other. And if the adversary assert that the Apostles did no signs, he shows their power and divine grace to have been the greater, inasmuch as without wonders they were able to win such a world to the service of God.[13] For this is the greatest sign and the crowning wonder of all, that the lowly, and poor, and despised, and ignorant, and unlearned, and needy, twelve men in number, seem without signs to drag in their train cities so great, and races and peoples, kings, tyrants, philosophers, and orators, and, so to speak, the whole world. Would you like to see signs taking place now? Then I will show you signs more striking than the former ones—not one dead man raised to life, not one blind man restored to sight, but the whole world freed from the darkness of error; not one leper cleansed, but entire nations washed from the leprosy of sin and purified through baptism to regeneration. What greater signs than these would you have, O man, contemplating so radical a change over the face of the earth?