Letters 205.1–207.1

As far as the eyes of the body are concerned, some people we see and do not know, since their lives and pursuits are unknown to us; some we know and do not see, whose love and affection have become known to us, and among these we count you too; and so we desire all the more to see you, so that you may be among those whom we both see and know. For those who are thrust before our eyes as strangers are not only not desirable but scarcely tolerable, unless the beauty of the inner man appears in them by some signs. But as for those whose mind, like yours, has appeared to us by understanding before their body was seen, we already know them, but we desire to see them too, so that through what is seen with the eyes we may enjoy much more pleasantly and familiarly the inner friend we already know. But perhaps God will grant us this too in your case, when human affairs are quieter and more tranquil, as we wish, so that it may be a matter of honorable love rather than of troublesome necessity. Now let me answer, as far as I can with the Lord's help, the questions you sent me on another sheet besides the letter.

You ask whether the Lord's body now has bones and blood, or the other features of flesh. What if you were to add whether it also has clothing: would the question not grow? For what reason, except that we can scarcely conceive of things without corruption which we know to be corruptible in the use of this life of ours, although certain proofs of divine miracles have already been given, from which one may infer greater ones? For if the clothing of the Israelites could last so many years in the desert without wearing out, if the dead hide of their shoes lasted so long without decay, God can certainly extend the incorrupt condition of any bodies whatever for as long as he wills. I therefore believe that the Lord's body is in heaven as it was when he ascended into heaven. And he had said to his disciples, as we read in the gospel, when they doubted his resurrection and thought that what they saw was not a body but a spirit: “See my hands and feet; handle and see, for a spirit does not have bones and flesh, as you see that I have.” So, while he was on earth, he was handled by their hands; so, when he went into heaven, he was taken away from their sight. There an angelic voice sounded: “He will come in the same way as you saw him going into heaven.” Let faith be present, and no question will remain.

Unless perhaps one must inquire about the blood, since, when he had said, “Handle and see, for a spirit does not have bones and flesh,” he did not add blood. Let us not, then, add an inquiry into what he did not add in speaking. And, if you please, let the question be ended briefly; for perhaps a more troublesome investigator, seizing the occasion of the blood, will press us and say: “If blood, why not phlegm too, why not yellow bile and black bile, the four humors by which, as even medical science testifies, the nature of the flesh is tempered?” But whatever anyone may add, let him beware of adding corruption, lest he corrupt the soundness and purity of his own faith.

Human weakness measures divine works it has not experienced by the habit of things it has experienced, and thinks itself clever in its chatter when it says: “If it is flesh, it has blood too; if blood, the other humors too; if the other humors, then corruption too.” In the same way it might say: “If it is flame, it burns; if it burns, it scorches; if it scorches, then it set fire to the bodies of the three men thrown into the furnace of fire by the ungodly king.” But if no one who thinks rightly about divine works doubts that this miracle was done in the three men, why should it not be believed that he who made those bodies incapable of being corrupted by fire made that body incapable of being corrupted by fire, hunger, disease, old age, or any other force by which corruption commonly undermines human bodies? And if anyone says that incorruptibility against fire was not added to the flesh of those three men, but that the power of corrupting was taken away from the fire itself, why should we fear that he who made fire unable to corrupt could not make flesh unable to be corrupted? For if that is understood as a change not of the flesh but of the fire, it is much more wonderful; for at the same time it did not burn the bodies of the men, so as to be unable to harm them, and it did burn the wood of the furnace, so as to be able to blaze. But those who do not believe even these things distrust the divine power too much, and our discourse now is neither with them nor to them; but let those who believe these things infer from them in some way the things they faithfully inquire about. So the divine power is able, while some qualities of this visible and tangible nature of bodies remain, to take away whatever qualities it wills; and through this it is able also to strengthen mortal members with stable vigor, the features of their form remaining but the corruption of mortality having died away, so that decay is absent while the likeness is present, movement present and fatigue absent, the power of eating present and the necessity of hunger absent.

As for what we read in the apostle, “Flesh and blood will not possess the kingdom of God,” the question is indeed resolved also in the way you mentioned, that by the name of flesh and blood the works of flesh and blood are to be understood; but since the apostle was speaking not of works but of the manner of the resurrection, and was dealing with that question in his argument, in that place flesh and blood are better understood as put for the corruption of flesh and blood. For if the word “flesh” signifies activity, why should it not also signify corruption, as it is said, “All flesh is grass”? For here too corruptibility itself is signified; for it continues, “And all the glory of flesh is like the flower of grass; the grass withers, the flower falls.” Does this apply also to that flesh of which it was said, “Handle and see, for a spirit does not have bones and flesh, as you see that I have”? For how could it wither or fall, when it is written that Christ, rising from the dead, dies no more, and death no longer has dominion over him?

So look at this saying of the apostle from the beginning, and consider it whole. When he wished to persuade of the resurrection of the dead those who said that there is no resurrection of the dead, having first put forward the resurrection of Christ as an example, among the other things he set out there he raised a question for himself and said: “But someone will say, How do the dead rise? And with what body do they come?” that is, with what kind of body. Then, bringing in the proofs of seeds, he says: “Foolish one, what you sow is not brought to life unless it dies; and what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of some other kind; but God gives it a body as he wills, and to each of the seeds its own body.” In this sense, then, he had said, “You do not sow the body that is to be.” For it is not that wheat will not come from wheat; but since no one sows the blade or the stalk or the many coverings of the grains in the chaff, with which the seeds nonetheless rise up, he says “but a bare grain,” wishing to show by this that, if God can add what was not in the bare seed, much more can he restore what was in the human body.

And what he adds concerns the difference among those who rise, because of the different glories of the faithful and the saints. “Not all flesh,” he says, “is the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, another of cattle, another of birds, another of fish. There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly is one, and that of the earthly another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead.” In all these the sense is this: if the kinds of flesh, though all are mortal, nevertheless differ among themselves according to the diversity of living things; and if bodies, though all are visible, nevertheless differ according to the diversity of their places, so that the glory of the heavenly is one and that of the earthly another; and if in the lofty places, though all are heavenly, they too differ in the brightness of their lights; it is no wonder that in the resurrection of the dead the glory of merits will differ.

From here he comes to what all flesh that rises to eternal life has in common, and says: “It is sown in corruption, it will rise in incorruption; it is sown in dishonor, it will rise in glory; it is sown in weakness, it will rise in power; it is sown an animal body, it will rise a spiritual body.” In these words of the apostle, is it right to think that our bodies will rise better than Christ's, when the example set before us is from him, to which we ought faithfully to look and for which we ought to hope through his grace? And so the body of Christ could in no way have risen with corruption, if ours is promised to rise in incorruption; nor could it have risen without glory, if ours will rise in glory; and what glory is there where there is still corruption? It is therefore quite absurd for us to believe that that body was both sown in weakness, that is, put to death, and rose in weakness, when our body is sown in weakness and rises in power, and the same apostle says of Christ, “Though he was crucified out of weakness, yet he lives by the power of God.” And who would think so absurdly as to believe that that body was sown animal and raised animal, if ours is sown animal and will rise spiritual?

It is agreed, then, and in no way to be doubted, that the body of Christ, which, although it did not see the corruption of decay in the tomb (whence it is written, “Nor will you let your Holy One see corruption”), could nevertheless be pierced by nails and a spear, now exists entirely in incorruption; and that what was sown in the dishonor of the passion and death is now in the glory of eternal life; and that what could be crucified out of weakness now reigns in power; and that what was an animal body, since it was taken from Adam, is now spiritual, since it is now inseparably joined to the spirit. For when the apostle wished to bring forward the testimony of the Scriptures about the animal body, he cited what we read in Genesis: “If there is an animal body,” he says, “there is also a spiritual one; so also it is written, The first Adam became a living soul,” or “a live soul.” You surely recall how it is written: “And God breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” And it was said also of the animals: “Let the earth bring forth the living soul.” So the animal body is understood to be so called because it is like the other animals in the dissolution and corruption of death; it is refreshed daily with food and afterward, when the living frame is overcome, it is dissolved; but the spiritual body is one that, together with the spirit, is now immortal.

Some, however, think that the body becomes spiritual when the body itself is also changed into spirit, and what man was, of body and spirit, will be wholly and entirely spirit, as though the apostle had said, “It is sown a body, it will rise a spirit.” But he said, “It is sown an animal body, it will rise a spiritual body.” Accordingly, just as the animal body is not soul but body, so too we must think the spiritual body is not spirit but body. And who would dare to think either that Christ's body did not rise spiritual, or, if it rose spiritual, that it was no longer a body but a spirit, when he refutes this opinion of the disciples where, seeing him, they thought they were seeing a spirit, and he said, “Handle and see, for a spirit does not have bones and flesh, as you see that I have”? So that flesh was already a spiritual body, and yet it was not spirit but body, never again to be loosed and separated from the soul by any death; just as the animal body, such as was animated by the breath of God when man became a living soul, would itself have become spiritual from animal without the intervention of death, had not the transgression of the commandment, sin having first been committed, inflicted a penalty before God gave the crown for righteousness kept.

Hence the Lord Christ came to us by way of us, when he, the righteous one, found us sinners: by the path, as it were, of our lowliness, but not with the disease of our iniquity. For he appeared to us through an animal, that is, a mortal, body, though he could certainly have come at first with an immortal body if he had wished. But since we had to be healed by the humility of the Son of God, he came down even to our weakness and showed the merit and reward of our faith by the power of his resurrection. Therefore the apostle continues and says: “The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” Whether the first Adam is understood as the one formed earlier from the dust and the last Adam as the one born of the Virgin, or whether both are fulfilled in each human being, so that the first Adam is man in a mortal body and the last Adam the same man in an immortal body, still he meant that between a living soul and a life-giving spirit there is this difference, that in the one case there is an animal body, in the other a spiritual one. For the soul in an animal body does indeed live, but does not give life to the point of taking away corruption; but in a spiritual body, since, cleaving perfectly to the Lord, it is one spirit, it so gives life as to make the body spiritual, consuming all corruption and fearing no separation.

Accordingly he continues: “But it is not the spiritual that is first but the animal, and afterward the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, earthly; the second man is from heaven, heavenly. As was the earthly, so are those who are earthly; and as is the heavenly, so are those who are heavenly. Just as we have borne the image of the earthly, let us also bear the image of him who is from heaven.” What does “As was the earthly, so are those who are earthly” mean, if not mortals from a mortal? And what does “As is the heavenly, so are those who are heavenly” mean, if not immortals through an immortal? The one through Adam, the other through Christ. For the Lord, though he was heavenly, became earthly for this purpose, that he might make heavenly those who were earthly; that is, from immortal he became mortal by taking the form of a servant, not by changing the nature of the Lord, so that he might make immortal those who were mortal by imparting the grace of the Lord, not by keeping the injury of the servant.

So when the apostle, discussing the resurrection of the body, had taught that our bodies will become incorruptible from corruptible, glorious from contemptible, strong from weak, spiritual from animal, that is, immortal from mortal, he added the point at issue and said: “For this I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God.” And lest anyone should think that the apostle had defined this according to the substance of the flesh, he made clear what he meant by adding: “Nor will corruption possess incorruption,” as though he were saying: “When I said, ‘Flesh and blood will not possess the kingdom of God,’ I said it because corruption will not possess incorruption.” In this place, then, he meant the corruption of mortality to be understood by the name of flesh and blood.

Then, as though it were said to him, “How will there be flesh and not be flesh?” (for there will be flesh, since the Lord said after the resurrection, “Handle and see, for a spirit does not have bones and flesh, as you see that I have”; but there will not be flesh, since flesh and blood will not possess the kingdom of God), he explains what he said, adding: “Behold, I tell you a mystery: we shall all rise” (or, as the Greek manuscripts have it, “we shall all sleep”), “but we shall not all be changed.” Whether he meant this change to be understood for the worse or for the better, what follows shows. “In an atom,” he says, that is, in a point of time that cannot be divided; “in the twinkling of an eye,” that is, with the utmost speed; “at the last trumpet,” that is, at the last signal that will be given for these things to be fulfilled; “for the trumpet will sound,” he says, “and the dead will rise incorrupt, and we shall be changed.” So this change must without doubt be understood as for the better, because all, both righteous and unrighteous, will rise, but, as the Lord says in the gospel, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment, calling eternal punishment “judgment,” as in another place he says, “He who does not believe is already judged.” Accordingly, those who will rise to judgment will not be changed into that incorruption which cannot suffer even the corruption of pain; for that belongs to the faithful and the saints, while these will be tormented with perpetual corruption, because their fire will not be quenched and their worm will not die.

What, then, does this distinction mean, “And the dead will rise incorrupt, and we shall be changed,” if not that all will rise incorrupt, but of these the righteous will also be changed into that incorruption which no corruption at all can harm? And so those who will not be changed into it will indeed rise incorrupt in the wholeness of their limbs, but still to be corrupted by the pain of punishments, when they hear, “Go into the eternal fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels.” The righteous man will not fear this evil hearing. And as for that change of the righteous, when he had said, “We shall be changed,” as though we were asking how this would happen or what kind of change it would be, he adds and says: “For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal put on immortality.” In my opinion, it is not to be doubted that it is in this sense that it was said, “Flesh and blood will not possess the kingdom of God,” because there will not be there the corruption and mortality of flesh and blood; for in this place he called flesh and blood by these qualities.

Therefore, to give an example that occurs to me for the moment: as it is written, “Lest perhaps the tempter has tempted you and our labor be in vain,” and here the devil is understood, as though God does not tempt at all, of whom Scripture says in another place, “He himself tempts no one”; and yet this statement is not contrary to the one in which it is said, “The Lord your God tests you”; but the question is resolved, since the word “temptation” has different meanings, in that the temptation of deception is one thing and the temptation of testing another: in the former sense the tempter is understood to be none but the devil, but in the latter God tempts; so, when it is said, “Flesh will possess the kingdom of God,” and “Flesh will not possess the kingdom of God,” let the meaning of this word too be distinguished, and there will be no question. For flesh in its substance, in the sense in which it was said, “A spirit does not have bones and flesh, as you see that I have,” possesses the kingdom of God; but flesh understood in the sense of corruption will not possess it. For this was explained, when it was said, “Flesh and blood will not possess the kingdom of God,” by what was immediately added: “Nor will corruption possess incorruption,” as we have, I think, sufficiently discussed.

As to your question whether the features of bodies are formed individually by God the Creator, it will not trouble you if you understand, as far as the human mind can, the power of the divine working. For how could we deny that God works even now all the things that are created, when the Lord says, “My Father is working until now”? Hence the rest of the seventh day must be understood as a rest from creating natures themselves, not from governing those that are recorded as created. So since the nature of things is governed by the Creator, and all things are born in their orders, in their predetermined places and times, God is working until now. For if God does not now form these things, how do we read, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you”? How also can this be taken: “If God so clothes the grass of the field, which is today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven”? Unless perhaps it is to be believed that grass is clothed by God and bodies are not formed by God! For when he said “clothes,” he indicates clearly enough that he speaks not of a past ordering but of a present working. Hence also that saying of the apostle about seeds which I mentioned above: “You do not sow the body that is to be,” he says, “but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of some other kind; but God gives it a body as he wills.” He did not say “gave” or “arranged,” but “gives,” so that you may understand that the Creator applies the efficacy of his wisdom to creating the things that arise daily in their own times. Of this wisdom it was said, “It reaches mightily from end to end and” (he did not say “arranged,” but) “arranges all things sweetly.” But it is a great thing to understand even slightly how changeable and temporal things are created not by changeable and temporal movements of the Creator but by an eternal and stable power.

As for what you thought should be asked, whether all the baptized, if they leave the body entangled in various crimes without repentance, will obtain pardon at some time, I have already written a book of no small size; if you take care to have it copied, perhaps you will need to ask nothing further on this.

You also wish to learn from me whether that breath of God in Adam is itself the soul. I answer briefly: either it is the soul, or the soul was made from it. But even if it is the soul, it was made. For God speaks of the soul through the prophet Isaiah, where he says, “I have made every breath,” as what follows shows clearly enough; for it continues, “Because of sin I grieved him a little,” that is, that very breath, and the rest, which can only be understood of the human soul. For in this question one must above all beware lest the soul be believed to be not a nature made by God but the very substance of God, like the only-begotten Son, who is his Word, or some particle of him; as though that nature and substance by which God is whatever he is could be changeable, which the soul is, as everyone perceives who perceives that he has a soul. While I was dictating this, the bearer, already waiting for the wind, was pressing me hard so that he might sail. So, if you read anything here said without order or polish, or if you perceive the whole to be so, attend to the teaching and pardon the language.

Whenever people ask me to commend them to your kindness and good faith, if I do not do it, I do not seem to myself to judge rightly either of your mercy toward those in need of help or of your goodwill toward us. So I do it, and above all I do not hesitate to commend to Your Eminence ministers of Christ who bear the care of the Church, whose co-heir and son we rejoice that you are, my justly illustrious and most eminent lord and son most dear in Christ. So when my holy brother and fellow bishop Felix asked me for this, I certainly ought not to refuse. I commend to you, then, a bishop of Christ who needs the help of a man of high rank; do what you can, then, since the Lord, whose gain we know you are most eager for, has granted you to be able to do a great deal.

Since, moved by brotherly affection, you yourself sent me, before I asked, the four books of Julian that he wrote against one of mine, I thought nothing more fitting could be done than that you above all should read my reply and judge whether I have answered rightly and fittingly. For someone or other had written certain extracts from these four books to the illustrious and religious man, Count Valerius, against that same book of mine, which he had learned I wrote to him. When these came into my hands through the care of the same eminent man, I did not delay to add a second volume for him to the first, in which I refuted all those things as best I could. But now, on examining those same books more carefully, I found that the man who had selected certain passages from them had not set everything down as it reads in those books. Hence it could seem to Julian, or to any of them, that it was rather I who had lied, since the extracts taken from these four books and sent to the count I mentioned could certainly not become known in the same way as the four books themselves. So whoever reads that second book of mine, written likewise to Count Valerius as the first was, should know that in some points I answered not Julian but rather the man who selected those passages from his books and did not set them down as he found them, but thought something should be changed, perhaps so as to make his own in this way what was agreed to be another's. But now, trusting the copies that Your Holiness sent as more accurate, I see that I must answer the author himself, who boasts that he has refuted one book of mine with his four, and does not cease to scatter the poisons of faith everywhere. So I have undertaken this work with the help of the Savior of small and great, and I know that you have prayed for me that I might complete it, and for those whom we believe and hope our labors of this kind will benefit. Attend, then, to my reply, the beginning of which will follow this letter. Farewell in the Lord, and remember us, most blessed brother.