# On the Resurrection of the Flesh

- Author: [Tertullian](https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/authors/tertullian/)
- Latin title: *De resurrectione carnis*
- Date: ca. 208–212 (approximate)
- Source: Emil Kroymann, ed., Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera, Pars 3, CSEL 47 (Vienna: Tempsky; Leipzig: Freytag, 1906), 25–125 (Latin text: Emil Kroymann (CSEL 47, 1906), digitized by Open Greek and Latin, University of Leipzig (csel-dev), CC BY-SA 4.0)

- Translation: Claude, from the original text, unless a passage says otherwise; each passage below gives the translator
- Editions and translations: Tertulliani Opera, Pars 2: Opera montanistica, CCSL 2 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1954)
- Work page: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/
- Passages: 63

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 1

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/1/#p-1
- Source: CSEL 47:25–26
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Christians hope in the resurrection of the dead; pagans mock it yet feed their dead, and even the philosophers who teach transmigration half-glimpse it.

### Latin text

Fiducia Christianorum resurrectio mortuorum. illam credentes sumus; hoc credere ueritas cogit; ueritatem deus aperit. sed uulgus inridet, existimans nihil superesse post mortem. et tamen defunctis parentat, et quidem impensissimo officio pro moribus sepultorum, pro temporibus esculentorum, ut quos negat sentire quicquam etiam desiderare praesumat. at ego magis ridebo uulgus tunc, cum ipsos quoque defunctos atrocissime exurit, quos postmodum gulosissime nutrit, isdem ignibus et promerens et offendens. o pietatem de crudelitate ludentem! sacrificat an insultat, cum crematis cremat? plane cum uulgo interdum et sapientes sententiam suam iungunt. nihil esse post mortem Epicuri schola est. ait et Seneca omnia post mortem finiri, etiam ipsam. satis est autem, si non minor philosophia Pythagorae et Empedoclis et Platonici immortalem animam e contrario reclamant, immo adhuc proxime etiam in corpora remeabilem adfirmant. etsi non in eadem, etsi non in humana tantummodo, ut Euphorbus in Pythagoram, Homerus in pauum, re(dire) censeantur, certe re-I cidiuatum animae corporalem pronuntiauerunt, tolerabilius mutata quam negata qualitate, pulsata saltem, licet non adita ueritate.Į ita saeculum resurrectionem mortuorum nec cum errat ignorat.

### English translation (Claude)

The confidence of Christians is the resurrection of the dead. Believing it, we are what we are; the truth compels us to believe it; God discloses the truth. But the crowd laughs, supposing that nothing survives after death. And yet it makes offerings to the dead, and with the most lavish service, suited to the station of the buried and to the season of the foods, so that it presumes that those whom it denies to feel anything even desire something. But I shall laugh at the crowd all the more when it burns its dead most cruelly and afterwards feeds them most gluttonously, with the same fires both courting their favour and offending them. O piety that makes sport of cruelty! Does it sacrifice or insult, when it burns offerings to the burned? Of course the wise sometimes join their opinion to the crowd's. That there is nothing after death is the school of Epicurus. Seneca too says that everything ends after death, even death itself. It is enough, however, if the no lesser philosophy of Pythagoras and Empedocles and the Platonists cries out on the contrary that the soul is immortal, and goes further still and affirms that it can even return into bodies: even if not into the same ones, even if not into human ones only, so that Euphorbus is thought to have come back in Pythagoras, Homer in a peacock; yet at least they declared a bodily renewal of the soul, changing its quality, which is more tolerable than denying it, knocking at the truth at least, though not entering. So the world is not ignorant of the resurrection of the dead even when it errs.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Epicurus (Epicurus (sayings and fragments)): allusion, medium confidence
- Seneca, Tro. 397 (Seneca): allusion, medium confidence
- Ennius, Ann. 1 (Ennius): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Seneca: cf. Troades 397 (“after death there is nothing, and death itself is nothing”), here paraphrased. Euphorbus reborn as Pythagoras and Homer's soul in a peacock (Ennius, Annales) are stock examples of transmigration. “illam credentes sumus” (“believing it, we are what we are”) is terse: our being as Christians rests on this belief.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 1 (CSEL 47:25–26; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/1/#p-1).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 2

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/1/#p-2
- Source: CSEL 47:26–28
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Heretics who deny another God than the Creator attack the resurrection of the flesh first; Tertullian, having written against Marcion and on Christ's flesh, now defends the flesh's resurrection itself.

### Latin text

Si uero et apud deum aliqua secta est Epicureis magis adfinis quam prophetis, sciemus, quid audiant a Christo Saducaei. Christo enim seruabatur omnia retro occulta nudare, dubitata dirigere, praelibata supplere, praedicata repraesentare, mortuorum certe resurrectionem non modo per semetipsum uerum etiam in semetipso probare. nunc autem ad alios Saducaeos praeparamur, partiarios sententiae illorum: dimidiam agnoscunt resurrectionem, solius scilicet animae, ita aspernati carnem, sicut et ipsum dominum carnis. nulli denique alii salutem corporali substantiae inuident quam alterius diuinitatis haeretici. ideoque et Christum aliter disponere coacti, ne creatoris habeatur, in ipsa prius carne eius errauerunt, aut nullius ueritatis contendentes eam secundum Marcionem et Basiliden aut propriae qualitatis secun-I dum haereses Valentini et Appellen. atque ita sequitur, ut salutem eius substantiae excludant, cuius Christum consortem negant, certi illam summo praeiudicio resurrectionis instrue-I tam, si iam in Christo resurrexit caro. propterea et nos uolumen praemisimus de carne Cristi, quo eam et solidam probamus aduersum phantasmatis uanitatem et humanam uindicamus aduersus qualitatis proprietatem, cuius condicio Christum et hominem et filium hominis inscripserit. carneum enim atque corporeum probantes eum, proinde et obducimus praescribendo nullum alium credendum deum praeter creatorem, dum talem ostendimus Christum, in quo dinosci. dinoscitur deus, qualis promittitur a creatore. obducti dehinc (et) de deo carnis auctore et de Christo carnis redemptore, iam et de - resurrectione carnis reuincentur. congruenter scilicet hoc ferme modo dicimus ineundam cum haereticis disceptatio* nem, - nam et ordo semper a principalibus deduci exposcit — ut de ipso prius constet, a quo dicatur dispositum esse quod quaeritur, atque adeo et haeretici ex conscientia infirmitatis numquam ordinare tractant. certi enim, quam laborant in alterius diuinitatis insinuatione aduersus deum mundi omnibus naturaliter notum de testimoniis operum, certe et in sacramentis priorem et in praedicationibus manifestiorem, sub obtentu quasi urgentioris causae, id est ipsius humanae salutis. ante omnia requirendae, a quaestionibus resurrectionis incipiunt, quia durius creditur resurrectio carnis quam una diuinitas; atque ita tractatum uiribus ordinis sui destitutum et scrupulis potius oneratum depretiantibus carnem paulatim ad alterius diuinitatis temperant sensum ex ipsa spei concussione et demutatione. deiectus enim unusquisque uel motus de gradu eius spei, quam susceperat apud creatorem, facile iam declinatur ad alterius spei auctorem, etiam ultro suspicandum. per diuersitatem enim promissionum diuersitas insinuatur deorum. sic multos inretitos uidemus, dum ante de resurrectione carnis eliduntur quam de unione diuinitatis. [elidunt] igitur quantum ad haereticos demonstrauimus, quo cuneo occurrendum sit a nobis. et occursum est iam suo quoque titulo: de deo quidem unico et Christo eius aduersus Marcionem, de carne uero domini etiam aduersus quatuor haereses, ad hanc maxime quaestionem praestruendam; uti nunc de sola carnis resurrectione ita digerendum sit, tamquam penes nos quoque incerta, id est penes creatorem, — nam et multi rudes et plerique sua fide dubii et simplices plures, quos instrui dirigi muniri oportebit — quia et (ex) hoc latere unio diuinitatis defendetur. sicut enim negata carnis resurrectione concutitur, ita uindicata constabilitur. animae autem salutem credo retractatu carere. omnes enim fere haeretici eam, quoquo modo uolunt, tamen non negant. uiderit unus aliqui Lucanus nec huic quidem substantiae parcens, quam secundum Aristotelem dissoluens aliud quid pro ea subicit, tertium quiddam resurrecturus, neque anima neque caro, id est non homo, sed ursus forsitan, qua Lucanus. habet et iste a nobis plenissimum (de omni statu animae stilum. quam inprimis immortalem tuentes, solius carnis et defectionem agnoscimus et refectionem cum maxime adserimus, redactis in ordinarium materiae corpus si qua et alibi pro causarum incursione praestricta distulimus. nam ut quaedam praelibari sollemne est, ita et differri necesse est, dummodo et praelibata suppleantur suo corpore et dilata reddantur suo nomine.

### English translation (Claude)

But if, even among God's people, there is some sect more akin to the Epicureans than to the prophets, we shall know what the Sadducees hear from Christ. For it was reserved for Christ to lay bare all that was formerly hidden, to set straight what was doubted, to fill out what had been foretasted, to make present what had been foretold, and above all to prove the resurrection of the dead not only by himself but also in himself. Now, however, we are preparing against other Sadducees, partners in part of their opinion: they acknowledge half a resurrection, namely of the soul alone, despising the flesh as they despise the Lord of the flesh himself. In short, none others begrudge salvation to the bodily substance than the heretics of another divinity. And so, being forced to arrange Christ differently too, lest he be held to be the Creator's, they erred first about his very flesh, contending either that it had no reality, following Marcion and Basilides, or that it had a quality of its own, following the heresies of Valentinus and Apelles. So it follows that they exclude from salvation the substance which they deny that Christ shared, well aware that it is armed with the strongest prior ruling for its resurrection if flesh has already risen in Christ. For this reason we too sent ahead a volume on the flesh of Christ, in which we both prove it solid against the emptiness of a phantasm and claim it as human against a peculiar quality, its condition having entitled Christ both man and Son of Man. For in proving him fleshly and bodily we thereby also refute them by a prior ruling that no other god is to be believed besides the Creator, while we show Christ to be such that in him God is recognized as such as is promised by the Creator. Refuted, then, both about God the author of the flesh and about Christ the redeemer of the flesh, they will now be overcome also about the resurrection of the flesh. Fittingly, we say, the debate with heretics should be entered roughly in this way (for order too always demands that one proceed from first principles): that it first be settled about him by whom the thing in question is said to have been arranged. And indeed heretics, conscious of their weakness, never treat things in order. For they know how hard they labour to slip in another divinity against the God of the world, who is known to all by nature from the testimony of his works, certainly prior in the sacraments and plainer in preaching; so, under the pretext of a more urgent case, namely human salvation itself, which must be sought before all else, they begin with questions of the resurrection, because the resurrection of the flesh is believed with more difficulty than one divinity. Thus, having stripped the discussion of the strength of its proper order and loaded it instead with scruples that disparage the flesh, they gradually bring it round to the notion of another divinity out of the very shaking and change of hope. For anyone thrown down or moved from the level of the hope he had received with the Creator is easily turned aside to the author of another hope, even one to be suspected of his own accord. For by a difference of promises a difference of gods is insinuated. Thus we see many ensnared, while they are struck down on the resurrection of the flesh before they are struck down on the unity of the divinity. So, as regards the heretics, we have shown with what wedge we must meet them. And they have already been met, each under its own title too: on the one God and his Christ, against Marcion; on the Lord's flesh, against four heresies as well, chiefly to lay the groundwork for this question; so that now the resurrection of the flesh alone is to be worked through as if it were uncertain among us too, that is, in the Creator's camp (for there are many unlearned, very many doubtful in their faith, and more who are simple, who will need to be instructed, directed, and fortified), because from this side too the unity of the divinity will be defended. For just as it is shaken if the resurrection of the flesh is denied, so it is established if it is upheld. The salvation of the soul, I believe, needs no discussion; for almost all heretics, in whatever way they like, still do not deny it. Let one Lucan see to himself, who does not spare even this substance, but, dissolving it after Aristotle, puts something else in its place, a third something to rise, neither soul nor flesh, that is, not a man, but perhaps a bear, being a Lucanian. He too has from us a very full treatise on the whole condition of the soul. Holding the soul above all to be immortal, we acknowledge the failing of the flesh alone and assert its restoration most strongly, gathering into the regular body of the subject whatever we touched on elsewhere and put off as occasions arose. For just as it is customary to give a foretaste of some things, so it is necessary to postpone others, provided what was foretasted is filled out in its proper body and what was postponed is rendered under its proper name.

### Scripture references

- Matt 22:23: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Tertullian, Marc. (Against Marcion): allusion, high confidence
- Tertullian, Carn. Chr. (On the Flesh of Christ): allusion, high confidence
- Tertullian, An. (On the Soul): allusion, high confidence
- Aristotle (Aristotle (works)): allusion, low confidence

### Translation notes

- The Sadducees: Matt 22:23–33. The earlier works named are Against Marcion, On the Flesh of Christ, and On the Soul (the “full treatise” against Lucan the Marcionite). “Neither soul nor flesh … perhaps a bear, being a Lucanian” puns on the proverbial Lucanian bears. “[elidunt]”, bracketed in the edition as a deletion, is left out. The digital text reads “800 quoque titulo”, an OCR slip for “suo”; “cunco” for “cuneo” (wedge) and “cam” for “cum” are also corrected. “Heretics of another divinity” are those who posit a god other than the Creator.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 2 (CSEL 47:26–28; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/1/#p-2).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 3

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/1/#p-3
- Source: CSEL 47:28–30
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Common human notions may support the truth, but heretics who borrow the pagans' denial of life after death should be made to argue from Scripture alone.

### Latin text

Est quidem et de communibus sensibus sapere in dei rebus, sed in testimonium ueri, non in adiutorium falsi, quod sit secundum diuinam, non contra diuinam dispositionem. quaedam enim et natura nota sunt, ut immortalitas animae penes plures, ut deus noster penes omnes. utar ergo et sententia Platonis alicuius pronuntiantis: omnis anima immortalis; utar et conscientia populi contestantis deum deorum; utar et reliquis communibus sensibus, qui deum iudicem praedicant: (deus uidet* et (deo commendo.. at cum aiunt: mortuum quod mortuum et (uiue dum uiuis* et (post mortem omnia finiuntur, etiam ipsa, tunc meminero et cor uulgi cinerem a deo deputatum et ipsam sapientiam saeculi stultitiam pronuntiatam, tunc, si haereticus ad uulgi uitia uel saeculi ingenia confugerit, łdiscede,> dicam, ab ethnico, haeretice; etsi unum estis omnes, qui deum fingitis, dum hoc tamen in Christi nomine facis, dum Christianus tibi uideris, alius ab ethnico es; redde illi suos sensus, quia nec ille de tuis instruitur. quid caeco duci inniteris, si uides? quid uestiris a nudo, si Christum induisti? quid alieno uteris clipeo, si ab apostolo armatus es? ille potius a te discat carnis resurrectionem confiteri quam tu ab illo diffiteri; quia si et a Christianis negari eam oporteret, sufficeret illis de sua scientia, non de uulgi ignorantia instrui. ad eo non erit Christianus qui eam negabit, quam confitentur Christiani, et his argumentis negabit, quibus utitur, non Christianus. aufer denique haereticis quae cum ethnicis sapiunt, ut de scripturis solis quaestiones suas sistant, et stare non poterunt. communes enim sensus simplicitas ipsa commendat et compassio sententiarum et familiaritas - opinionum. eoque fideliores existimantur, quia nuda et aperta et omnibus nota definiunt; ratio autem diuina in medulla est, non in superficie, et plerumque aemula manifestis.

### English translation (Claude)

It is indeed allowed to draw wisdom from common notions in the things of God, but as a testimony to the truth, not as an aid to falsehood, so that it accord with the divine arrangement, not oppose it. For some things are known even by nature, as the immortality of the soul to many, as our God to all. I will use, then, the opinion of a certain Plato declaring, “Every soul is immortal”; I will use also the conscience of the people bearing witness to the God of gods; I will use the other common notions too that proclaim God as judge: “God sees,” and “I commend it to God.” But when they say, “Dead is dead,” and “Live while you live,” and “After death all things end, even death itself,” then I shall remember both that the heart of the crowd has been reckoned ashes by God and that the very wisdom of the world has been pronounced foolishness. Then, if a heretic takes refuge in the vices of the crowd or the cleverness of the world, I shall say: “Depart from the heathen, heretic! Even if you are all one, you who invent a god, still, while you do it in the name of Christ, while you think yourself a Christian, you are other than the heathen. Give him back his notions, since he is not taught from yours either. Why lean on a blind guide, if you see? Why take clothing from the naked, if you have put on Christ? Why use another's shield, if you have been armed by the apostle?” Let him rather learn from you to confess the resurrection of the flesh than you from him to deny it; for if it had to be denied even by Christians, it would be enough for them to be instructed from their own knowledge, not from the ignorance of the crowd. So he will not be a Christian who denies what Christians confess, and denies it with arguments that one who is not a Christian uses. Take away from the heretics, in short, the notions they share with the heathen, so that they must rest their questions on the Scriptures alone, and they will not be able to stand. For common notions are commended by their very simplicity, by agreement of opinion and familiarity of views, and they are thought the more trustworthy because they define what is bare and open and known to all. But divine reason lies in the marrow, not on the surface, and is often at odds with appearances.

### Scripture references

- Isa 44:20: allusion, medium confidence
- 1 Cor 1:20: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 15:14: allusion, medium confidence
- Gal 3:27: allusion, high confidence
- Eph 6:11: allusion, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato, Phaedr. 245c (Plato (works)): quotation, high confidence
- Seneca, Tro. 397 (Seneca): echo, low confidence

### Translation notes

- “Every soul is immortal” is Plato, Phaedr. 245c. The popular sayings are proverbial. Allusions: Isa 44:20 (the heart as ashes), 1 Cor 1:20 and 3:19 (the world's wisdom foolishness), Matt 15:14 (blind guides), Gal 3:27 (putting on Christ), Eph 6:11–17 (the apostle's armour). “After death all things end, even death itself” echoes Seneca again (ch. 1).

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 3 (CSEL 47:28–30; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/1/#p-3).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 4

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/1/#p-4
- Source: CSEL 47:30–31
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Heretics and pagans alike scorn the flesh as vile and ask mockingly whether a body devoured and dissolved, with all its needs and defects, could ever return.

### Latin text

Itaque haeretici inde statim [incipiunt] praestruunt et inde dehinc interstruunt, unde sciunt facile capi mentes, de communione fauorabili sensuum. an aliud prius uel magis audias ab haeretico quam ab ethnico? et non protinus et non ubique conuicium carnis, in originem, in materiam, in casum, in omnem exitum eius, inmundae a primordio ex faecibus terrae, inmundioris deinceps ex seminis sui limo. friuolae infirmae criminosae onerosae molestae et post totum ignobilitatis elogium caducae in originem, terram, et cadaueris nomen, et de isto quoque nomine periturae in nullum inde iam nomen, in omnis iam uocabuli mortem? hancne ergo,1 (ait) uir sapiens, (et uisui et contactui et recordatui tuo ereptam persuadere uis, quod se receptura quandoque sit in integrum de corrupto, in solidum de casso, in plenum de inanito; in aliquid omnino de nihilo, et utique rehibentibus eam ignibus et undis et aluis ferarum et rumis alitum et lactibus piscium et ipsorum temporum propria gola? adeone autem eadem sperabitur quae intercidit, ut claudus. et luscus [caecus] et leprosus et paralyticus reuertantur, ut redisse non libeat ad pristinum? an integri, ut iterum talia pati timeant? quid tum de consequentiis carnis? rursusne omnia necessaria illi et inprimis pabula atque potacula? et pulmonibus halandum et intestinis aestuandum et pudendis non pudendum et omnibus membris laborandum P rursus ulcera et uulnera et febris et podagra? et mors redoptanda? nimirum haec erunt nota carnis recuperandae. iterum cupere de ea euadere. et nos quidem haec aliquanto honestius pro stili pudore. ceterum quantum etiam spurciloquio liceat illorum. in congressibus experiri (est) tam ethnicorum quam haereticorum.

### English translation (Claude)

And so the heretics lay their foundations from there at once and go on building from there, knowing that minds are easily caught by the popular fellowship of common notions. Do you hear anything sooner or more often from a heretic than from a heathen? And is there not at once and everywhere abuse of the flesh: against its origin, its material, its lot, its whole end? Unclean from the beginning, formed from the dregs of the earth, more unclean afterwards from the slime of its own seed; trifling, weak, guilty, burdensome, troublesome, and, after the whole indictment of its baseness, falling back into its origin, the earth, and into the name of corpse, and doomed to perish even from that name into no name at all, into the death of every designation. “Do you wish, then,” says the wise man, “to persuade me that this flesh, snatched from your sight and touch and memory, will one day recover itself whole from corruption, solid from emptiness, full from exhaustion, something at all from nothing, and that when fires and waves and the bellies of beasts and the crops of birds and the guts of fishes and the very gullet of time itself have taken it back? Will the same flesh that perished be hoped for in such a way that the lame and the one-eyed and the leper and the paralytic return, so that one would not wish to have come back to one's former state? Or whole, so that they may fear to suffer such things again? And what of the flesh's consequences? Will everything be needful to it again, and above all food and drink? Will the lungs have to breathe, the bowels to churn, the private parts to be unashamed, and all the members to toil? Again ulcers and wounds and fever and gout? And death to be longed for again? No doubt these will be the marks of the flesh recovered: to wish once more to escape from it.” And we indeed put this somewhat more decently, out of the modesty of the pen; but how far their foul talk may go one can learn in encounters, with heathen and heretics alike.

### Translation notes

- Two words bracketed in the edition as deletions are left out: “[incipiunt]” and “[caecus]” (“blind”) in the list of the maimed. “the wise man” is the sceptic whose objection is quoted. “u:nd.” in the digital text is read as “unde”.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 4 (CSEL 47:30–31; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/1/#p-4).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 5

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/1/#p-5
- Source: CSEL 47:31–33
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Even on heretical views the flesh owes its being to some divine will, but in truth God himself formed man by his own hand and gave the flesh the very name of man.

### Latin text

Igitur quoniam et rudes quique de communibus adhuc sensibus sapiunt et dubii et simplices per eosdem sensus denuo inquietantur et ubique in primis iste in nos aries temperatur, quo carnis condicio quassatur, necessario et a nobis carnis primum condicio munietur, uitupera.tione laudatione depulsa. ita nos rhetoricari quoque prouocant haeretici, sicut etiam philosophari. futtile et friuolum istud corpusculum, quod malum denique appellare non horrent, etsi angelorum fuisset operatio, ut Menandro et Marco placet, etsi ignei alicuius extructio aeque angeli, ut Appelles docet, sufficeret ad auctoritatem carnis secundae diuinitatis patrocinium. angelos post deum nouimus. iam nunc quisquis ille summus deus haeretici cuiusque est, non inmerito ab ipso quoque deducerem carnis dignitatem, a quo uoluntas producendae ei adfuisset utique enim prohibuisset fieri quam fieri scisset, si fieri noluisset. ita et secundum illos aeque caro dei res. nihil operis non est eius, qui passus est esse. bene autem, quod et plures et clariores quaeque doctrinae totam hominis figulationem deo nostro cedunt. quantus hic sit, satis nosti qui unicum credidisti. incipiat iam tibi caro placere, cuius artifex tantus est. (sed et mundus, inquis, dei opus est, et tamen praeterit habitus huius mundi, apostolo quoque auctore, nec idcirco restitutio mundi praeiudicabitur, quia dei opus est. et utique si uniuersitas inreformabilis post decessum, quid portio? plane, si portio uniuersitati adaequatur. ad distantiam enim prouocamus: primo quidem, omnia* quod sermone dei facta sunt [et sine illo nihil, caro autem et sermone dei constitit propter formam, ne quid sine sermone (fieret) - faciamus enim hominem ante praemisit - et amplius manu propter praelationem, ne uniuersitati compararetur: et finxit, inquit, deus hominem. magnae sine dubio differentiae ratio, pro condicione scilicet rerum. minora enim quae fiebant eo, cui fiebant, si quidem homini fiebant, cui mox a deo addicta sunt. merito igitur, ut famula, iussu et imperio et sola uocali potestate uniuersa processerant, contra homo, ut dominus eorum, in hoc ab ipso deo extructus est. [ut dominus esse possit, dum fit a domino.J hominem autem memento carnem proprie dici, quae prior uocabulum hominis occupauit: et finxit deus hominem, limum de terra, - iam homo, qui adhuc limus — et insufflauit lauit in faciem eius flatum uitae, et factus est homo, id est limus, in animam uiuam, et posuit deus hominem, quem finxit, in paradiso. adeo homo figmentum primo, dehinc totus. hoc eo commendarim, uti quicquid omnino homini a deo prospectum atque promissum est non soli animae uerum et carni scias debitum, ut] si non ex consortio generis, certe uel ex priuilegio nominis.

### English translation (Claude)

Therefore, since the unlearned are still wise from common notions, and the doubtful and the simple are troubled afresh by the same notions, and everywhere this battering-ram is first swung against us, by which the condition of the flesh is shaken, we too must of necessity first fortify the condition of the flesh, repelling abuse with praise. So the heretics provoke us to play the rhetorician too, just as the philosopher. This futile and trifling little body, which they do not shrink even from calling evil: even if it had been the work of angels, as Menander and Marcus hold, even if the construction of some fiery being, likewise an angel, as Apelles teaches, the patronage of a secondary divinity would suffice for the authority of the flesh. We know the angels come next after God. Indeed, whoever the supreme god of each heretic may be, I would not unjustly derive the dignity of the flesh from him too, since the will for it to be produced was present with him; for he would surely have forbidden to be made what he knew was being made, if he had not wished it to be made. So even by their account the flesh is equally a thing of God. Nothing is not his work who allowed it to be. It is well, however, that most doctrines, and the more distinguished ones, grant the whole fashioning of man to our God. How great he is, you know well enough, you who have believed in the one God. Let the flesh now begin to please you, since its craftsman is so great. “But the world too,” you say, “is the work of God, and yet ‘the form of this world passes away,’ as the apostle too affirms, and the world's restoration is not presumed on the ground that it is the work of God. And surely, if the whole cannot be refashioned after its passing, what of a part?” Certainly, if the part is equal to the whole. But we appeal to the difference. First, that all things were made by the Word of God, and without him nothing; but the flesh took its being by the Word of God too, for the sake of form, so that nothing should be made without the Word (he said beforehand, “Let us make man”), and more, by his hand, for the sake of preeminence, so that it might not be compared with the universe: “And God formed man,” it says. Without doubt there is reason here for a great difference, according to the condition of the things. For the things that were made were less than him for whom they were made, since they were made for man, to whom God soon assigned them. Rightly, then, as servants, all things came forth at a bidding and command and by the mere power of the voice; but man, as their lord, was built up for this by God himself. And remember that it is the flesh that is properly called man, which first took the name of man: “And God formed man, clay from the earth” (already man, while still clay) “and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man” (that is, the clay) “became a living soul; and God placed the man whom he had formed in paradise.” So man was first the thing formed, then the whole. I would stress this so that you may know that whatever at all God has provided and promised to man is owed not to the soul alone but to the flesh as well, if not from partnership in kind, then at least from the privilege of the name.

### Scripture references

- 1 Cor 7:31: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:3: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:26: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 2:7: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 2:8: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The quotations are 1 Cor 7:31, John 1:3, Gen 1:26, and Gen 2:7–8. Menander was a disciple of Simon Magus; the manuscripts' “Marcus” is uncertain (some editors read Saturninus). The words “[ut dominus esse possit, dum fit a domino]” (“that he might be lord, being made by the Lord”) are bracketed in the edition as a deletion and left out. The digital text also has stray brackets (“[et sine illo nihil” … “ut]”) that do not mark a deletion, since removing the whole span would remove the argument; they are ignored. “futtile et frioulu” is read as “futtile et friuolum”.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 5 (CSEL 47:31–33; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/1/#p-5).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 6

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/1/#p-6
- Source: CSEL 47:33–34
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The flesh is honoured by the hands of God who shaped it with Christ, the Word to become flesh, in view; its lowly origin in clay no more disgraces it than earth disgraces gold.

### Latin text

Persequar itaque propositum, si tamen tantum possim carni uindicare, quantum contulit illi qui eam fecit, iam tunc gloriantem, quod illa pusillitas, limus, in manus dei, quaecumque sunt, peruenit, satis beatus etsi solummodo contactus. quid enim, si nullo amplius opere statim de contactu dei figmentum constitisset? (non) adeo magna res, [agebatur] quae ista materia extruebatur. itaque totiens honoratur, quotiens manus dei patitur, dum tangitur, dum decerpitur, dum deducitur, dum effingitur. recogita totum illi deum occupatum ac deditum, manu sensu opere consilio sapientia prouidentia et ipsa inprimis adfectione, quae liniamenta ducebat. quodcumque enim limus exprimebatur, Christus cogitabatur, homo futurus, quod et limus, et caro sermo, quod et terra tunc. sic enim praefatio patris ad filium: faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. et fecit hominem deus, id utique quod finxit, ad imaginem dei fecit illum, scilicet Christi. et sermo enim deus, qui in effigie dei constitutus non rapinam existimauit pariari deo. ita limus ille iam tunc imaginem induens Christi futuri in carne non tantum dei opus erat sed et pignus. quo nunc facit ad infuscandam originem carnis nomen terrae uentilare, ut sordentis, ut iacentis elementi? cum, et si alia materia excudendo homini competisset, artificis fastigium recogitari oporteret, qui illam et eligendo dignam iudicasset et tractando fecisset. Phidiae manus Iouem Olympium ex ebore molitur, et adoratur nec iam bestiae, et quidem insulsissimae, dens est, sed summum saeculi numen, non quia elephantus, sed quia Phidias tantus: deus uiuus, deus uerus quamcumque materiae uilitatem non de sua operatione purgasset et ab omni infirmitate sanasset? an hoc supererit, ut honestius homo deum quam hominem deus finxerit? nunc etsi scandalum limus, alia iam res est. carnem iam teneo, non terram, licet et caro audiat: terra es et in terram ibis. origo recensetur, non substantia. [reuocatur datum] est esse aliquid origine generosius et de mutatione felicius. nam et aurum terra, quia de terra, hactenus tamen terra, ex quo aurum, longe alia materia, splendidior atque nobilior, de obsoletiore matrice. ita et deo licuit carnis aurum de limi, quibus putas, sordibus. excusato censu eliquasse.

### English translation (Claude)

Let me pursue my purpose, then, if only I can claim for the flesh as much as he who made it conferred on it, glorying already then that this petty thing, clay, came into the hands of God, whatever they are, happy enough had it only been touched. For what if the thing formed had come into being at once from God's touch, with no further work? This material out of which it was being built was not so great a thing. And so it is honoured as often as it undergoes the hands of God: while it is touched, pulled off, drawn out, shaped. Consider God wholly occupied with it and devoted to it, with hand, sense, work, counsel, wisdom, providence, and above all with the very affection that drew its lines. For whatever form the clay was pressed into, Christ was in mind, who was to be man, which the clay also was, and the Word flesh, which the earth also was then. For so the Father said to the Son beforehand: “Let us make man in our image and likeness.” And God made man, that is, what he formed; “in the image of God he made him,” that is, of Christ. For the Word too is God, who, being in the form of God, did not think it robbery to be equal with God. So that clay, already then putting on the image of Christ who was to be in the flesh, was not only God's work but also his pledge. What use is it now, to darken the origin of the flesh, to toss about the name of earth as a filthy and lowly element? For even if some other material had been suitable for fashioning man, one ought to consider the eminence of the craftsman, who both judged it worthy in choosing it and made it so in handling it. The hands of Phidias work Olympian Jupiter out of ivory, and it is worshipped, and is no longer the tooth of a beast, and a most stupid one, but the supreme deity of the world, not because it is an elephant but because Phidias is so great. Would the living God, the true God, not have purged whatever cheapness of material by his own working and healed it of all weakness? Or will it remain that man fashioned a god more honourably than God fashioned man? Now, even if the clay is a stumbling block, it is already something else. It is flesh I hold now, not earth, though the flesh too hears: “Earth you are, and into earth you shall go.” It is the origin that is recounted, not the substance. A thing may be nobler than its origin and happier by its change. For gold too is earth, since it comes from earth; yet earth only so far, for once gold it is a far different material, more splendid and nobler, from a humbler womb. So God too was free to refine the gold of the flesh from the dregs, as you think them, of the clay, its lineage excused.

### Scripture references

- Gen 1:26: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:27: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 2:6: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:14: allusion, medium confidence
- Gen 3:19: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The quotations are Gen 1:26–27, Phil 2:6, and Gen 3:19; “the Word flesh” alludes to John 1:14. The image is taken as “of Christ” (the incarnate Word) in whose likeness Adam was formed. Two words bracketed in the edition as deletions are left out: “[agebatur]” and “[reuocatur datum]”. “(non) adeo magna res” is the edition's supplement, followed.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 6 (CSEL 47:33–34; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/1/#p-6).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 7

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/1/#p-7
- Source: CSEL 47:34–36
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The clay became flesh when God breathed into it, and the soul is so joined to the flesh that it does everything through it; the flesh is therefore the soul's partner and co-heir.

### Latin text

Sed dilutior uideatur auctoritas carnis, quia non et ipsam proprie manus diuina tractauit, sicuti limum.. quando in hoc tractauerit limum, ut postmodum caro fieret ex limo, carni utique negotium gessit. sed adhuc uelim discas, quando et quomodo caro floruerit ex limo. neque enim, ut quidam uolunt, illae pelliciae tunicae, quas Adam et Eua paradisum exuti induerunt, ipsae erunt carnis ex limo reformatio, cum aliquanto prius et Adam substantiae suae traducem in feminae iam carne recognouerit - hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis et caro ex carne mea - et ipsa delibatio masculi in feminam carne suppleta sit, limo, opinor, supplenda, si Adam adhuc limus. obliteratus igitur et deuoratus est limus in carnem. quando? cum factus est homo in animam uiuam de dei flatu, uaporeo scilicet et idoneo torrere quodammodo limum in aliam qualitatem, quasi in testam, ita in carnem. sic et figulo licet argillam temperato ignis adflatu in materiam robustiorem recorporare et aliam ex alia stringere speciem, aptiorem pristina et sui iam generis ac nominis. nam et si scriptum est: numquid argilla dicet figulo? id est homo deo, et si apostolus: in testaceis, ait, uasculis, [tamen] et argilla homo, quia limus ante, et testa caro, quia ex limo per adflatus diuini uaporem. quam postea pelliciae tunicae, id est cutes superductae, uestierunt. usque adeo, si detraxeris cutem, nudaueris carnem. ita quod hodie spolium efficitur, si detrahatur, hoc fuit indumentum, cum superstruebatur. hinc et apostolus circumcisionem despoliationem carnis appellans tunicam cutem adfirmauit. haec cum ita sint, habes et limum de manu dei gloriosum et carnem de adflatu dei gloriosiorem, quo pariter caro et limi rudimenta deposuit et animae ornamenta suscepit. num es diligentior deo, uti tu quidem Scythicas et Indicas gemmas et Rubentis Maris grana candentia non plumbo, non aere, non ferro, ne argento quoque oblaquees, sed electissimo et insuper operosissimo descrobes auro, et unguentis pretiosissimis quibusque uasculorum prius congruentiam cures, proinde perspectae ferruginis gladiis uaginarum adaeques dignitatem, — deus uero animae suae umbram, spiritus sui auram, oris sui operam uilissimo alicui commiserit capulo et indigne collocando utique damnauerit? collocauit autem — an potius inseruit et inmiscuit carni? tanta quidem concretione, ut incertum haberi possit, utrumne caro animam an carnem anima circumferat, utrumne animae caro an anima pareat carni. sed etsi magis animam inuehi atque dominari credendum est, ut magis deo proximam, hoc quoque ad gloriam carnis exuberat, quod proximam deo et continet et ipsius dominationis compotem praestat. quem enim naturae usum, quem mundi fructum, quem elementorum saporem non per carnem anima depascitur? quidni? per quam omni instrumento sensuum fulciatur, uisu auditu gustu odoratu contactu? per quam diuina potestate respersa est, nihil non sermone perficiens, uel tacite praemisso? et sermo enim de organo carnis est. artes per carnem, studia ingenia per carnem, opera negotia officia per carnem, atque adeo totum uiuere animae carnis est, ut non uiuere animae (nil) aliud sit quam a carne diuertere. sic etiam ipsum mori carnis est, cuius et uiuere. porro si uniuersa per carnem subiacent animae, carni quoque subiacent. per quod utaris, cum eo utaris necesse est ita caro, dum ministra et famula animae deputatur, consors et coheres inuenitur. si temporalium, cur non et aeternorum?

### English translation (Claude)

But the authority of the flesh may seem weaker because the divine hand did not handle it in its own right, as it did the clay. Since he handled the clay for this purpose, that it might afterwards become flesh out of clay, he was surely doing the flesh's business. But I would still have you learn when and how flesh blossomed out of clay. For those tunics of skin which Adam and Eve put on when stripped of paradise will not, as some would have it, be themselves the re-forming of flesh out of clay, since somewhat earlier Adam had already recognized the offshoot of his substance in the woman as flesh (“This now is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”), and the very portion taken from the male into the female was made up with flesh, when it would have had to be made up, I suppose, with clay, if Adam was still clay. The clay, therefore, was blotted out and swallowed up into flesh. When? When man became a living soul from the breath of God, a hot breath, fit to bake the clay somehow into another quality: as into earthenware, so into flesh. So too a potter can, by a tempered blast of fire, re-embody clay into a sturdier material and draw one form out of another, fitter than the former and now of its own kind and name. For even though it is written, “Shall the clay say to the potter?” (that is, man to God), and though the apostle says, “in earthen vessels,” man is clay because clay before, and flesh is earthenware because it came from clay through the heat of the divine breath. Afterwards the tunics of skin, that is, skins drawn over it, clothed it; so much so that if you strip off the skin, you lay bare the flesh. Thus what today becomes a spoil if stripped off was a garment when it was put on. Hence the apostle too, calling circumcision a stripping off of the flesh, affirmed that the skin is a tunic. This being so, you have both clay made glorious by the hand of God and flesh more glorious by the breath of God, by which the flesh at once laid aside the rudiments of clay and took up the adornments of the soul. Are you more careful than God, that you would set Scythian and Indian gems and the gleaming pearls of the Red Sea not in lead, not in bronze, not in iron, not even in silver, but would sink them in the choicest and most elaborately worked gold; that you would first see to vessels fit for all the most precious ointments; that you would likewise match the dignity of the scabbards to swords of proven steel, while God should have entrusted the shadow of his soul, the breeze of his Spirit, the work of his mouth to some most worthless sheath, and by placing it unworthily surely condemned it? But did he place it, or rather insert and mingle it with the flesh? With so close a union that it may be held uncertain whether the flesh carries the soul about or the soul the flesh, whether the flesh obeys the soul or the soul the flesh. But even if it is rather to be believed that the soul rides and rules, as nearer to God, this too overflows to the glory of the flesh, that it both contains what is nearest to God and makes it master of that very rule. For what use of nature, what enjoyment of the world, what taste of the elements does the soul feed on except through the flesh? Why not? Through it the soul is furnished with the whole equipment of the senses, sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch; through it the soul is sprinkled with a divine power, accomplishing everything by speech, even when it is sent ahead in silence. For speech too comes from an organ of the flesh. The arts come through the flesh, studies and talents through the flesh, works, business, duties through the flesh; indeed the soul's whole living so belongs to the flesh that for the soul not to live is nothing else than to part from the flesh. So even dying belongs to the flesh, as living does. Moreover, if all things are subject to the soul through the flesh, they are subject to the flesh too. What you use, you must use along with. So the flesh, while it is reckoned the minister and servant of the soul, turns out to be its partner and co-heir. If in temporal things, why not in eternal?

### Scripture references

- Gen 3:21: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 2:23: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 2:7: allusion, high confidence
- Isa 45:9: quotation, medium confidence
- 2 Cor 4:7: quotation, high confidence
- Col 2:11: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The quotations are Gen 2:23, Isa 45:9 (cf. Rom 9:20), and 2 Cor 4:7; the “tunics of skin” are Gen 3:21; the “stripping off of the flesh” is Col 2:11. Some held that the tunics of skin were the flesh itself (a view Tertullian rejects). “[tamen]”, bracketed in the edition as a deletion, is left out. “(nil)” is the edition's supplement.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 7 (CSEL 47:34–36; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/1/#p-7).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 8

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/1/#p-8
- Source: CSEL 47:36–37
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: In the Christian life the flesh is washed, anointed, signed, receives the laying on of hands and the body and blood of Christ, fasts, keeps chastity, and suffers martyrdom, so it shares in salvation.

### Latin text

Et haec quidem uelut de publica forma humanae condicionis suffragium carni procurauerim. uideamus nunc de propria etiam Christiani nominis forma, quanta huic substantiae friuolae ac sordidae apud deum praerogatiua sit, etsi sufficeret illi, quod nulla omnino anima salutem possit adipisci nisi, dum est in carne, crediderit; adeo caro salutis est cardo. de qua cum anima deo alligatur, ipsa est, quae efficit, ut anima alligari possit. scilicet caro abluitur, ut anima emaculetur; caro unguitur, ut anima consecretur; caro signatur, ut et anima muniatur; caro manus impositione adumbratur, ut et anima spiritu inluminetur; caro corpore et sanguine Christi uescitur, ut et anima de deo saginetur. non possunt ergo separari in mercede quas opera coniungit. nam et sacrificia deo grata, conflictationes dico animae, ieiunia et seras et aridas escas et adpendices huius officii sordes, caro de proprio suo incommodo instaurat. uirginitas quoque et uiduitas et modesta in occulto matrimonii dissimulatio et una notitia eius de bonis carnis deo adolentur. age iam, quid de ea sentis, cum pro nominis fide in medium extracta et odio publico exposita decertat, cum in carceribus maceratur teterrimo lucis exilio penuria mundi squalore paedore contumelia nictus, ne somno quidem libera, quippe ipsis etiam cubilibus meta ipsisque stramentis lancinata, cum iam et in luce omni tormentorum machinatione laniatur, cum denique suppliciis erogatur, enisa reddere Christo uicem moriendo pro ipso, et quidem per eandem crucem saepe, nedum per atrociora quoque ingenia poenarum? ne illa beatissima et gloriosissima, quae potest apud Christum dominum parere debito tanto, ut hoc solum debeat ei, quod ei debere desierit, hoc magis uincta quo absoluta!

### English translation (Claude)

These things I would have procured in support of the flesh from the public pattern, so to speak, of the human condition. Let us now see, from the particular pattern of the Christian name, how great a prerogative this trifling and filthy substance has with God, even though it would be enough for it that no soul at all can obtain salvation unless it believes while it is in the flesh: so true is it that the flesh is the hinge of salvation. And when the soul is bound to God, it is the flesh that makes it possible for the soul to be bound. The flesh, indeed, is washed, that the soul may be cleansed of stain; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed, that the soul too may be protected; the flesh is overshadowed by the laying on of the hand, that the soul too may be enlightened by the Spirit; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul too may be fattened on God. They cannot, then, be separated in reward, whom the work joins together. For the sacrifices pleasing to God as well, I mean the struggles of the soul, fasts, late and dry meals, and the squalor that goes with this duty, the flesh performs at its own cost. Virginity too, and widowhood, and the modest concealment of marriage in secret, and the knowledge of one marriage only, are offered to God as incense from the goods of the flesh. Come now, what do you think of it when, dragged out for faith in the Name and exposed to public hatred, it fights to the end; when in prisons it wastes away, beaten down by that foulest exile from the light, by want of the world, squalor, filth, and abuse, not free even in sleep, since it is bound even on its bed and torn by its very straw; when then in the daylight it is lacerated by every device of torment; when finally it is spent in punishments, striving to repay Christ by dying for him, and often indeed by the same cross, not to mention still more atrocious inventions of penalty? Truly most blessed and most glorious is the flesh that can repay Christ the Lord so great a debt that it owes him only this, that it has ceased to owe him: the more bound, the more set free!

### Extrabiblical texts

- Tertullian, Bapt. (On Baptism): echo, low confidence

### Translation notes

- The sequence washing, anointing, signing, laying on of hands, and communion describes the rites of Christian initiation (cf. Tertullian, On Baptism). “una notitia eius” is taken as knowing only one marriage (cf. On Monogamy). The digital text's “nictus” and “meta” are read as forms of “uinctus/uincta” (“bound”), which the context requires; not corrected. “at et anima spiritu” is corrected to “ut”. “The Name” is the name of Christ.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 8 (CSEL 47:36–37; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/1/#p-8).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 9

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/1/#p-9
- Source: CSEL 47:37–38
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: God will not abandon the flesh he made, adorned, and loves; its very weakness, sin, and condemnation are what his mercy came to heal.

### Latin text

Igitur ut retexam, quam deus manibus suis ad imaginem dei struxit, quam de suo adflatu ad similitudinem suae uiuacitatis animauit, quam incolatui fructui dominaturi totius suae operationis praeposuit, quam sacramentis suis disciplinisque uestiuit, cuius munditias amat, cuius castigationes probat, cuius passiones sibi adpretiat, haecine non resurget, totiens dei? absit, absit, ut deus manuum suarum operam, ingenii sui curam, adflatus sui uaginam, molitionis suae reginam, liberalitatis suae heredem, religionis suae sacerdotem, testimonii sui militem, Christi sui sororem, in aeternum destituat interitum. bonum deum nouimus: solum optimum a Christo eius addiscimus. qui, dilectionem mandans post suam in proximum, faciet et ipse quod praecepit. diliget carnem tot modis sibi proximam: etsi infirmam, sed uirtus in infirmitate perficitur: etsi imbecillam, sed medicum non desiderant nisi male habentes: etsi inhonestam, sed inhonestioribus maiorem circumdamus honorem: etsi perditam, sed ego, inquit, ueni, ut quod periit saluum faciam: etsi peccatricem, sed malo mihi, inquit, salutem peccatoris quam mortem: etsi damnatam, sed ego, inquit, percutiam et sanabo. quid ea exprobras carni, quae deum expectant, quae in deum sperant? honorantur ab illo quibus subuenit. ausim dicere: si haec carni non accidissent, benignitas gratia misericordia omnis uis dei benefica uacuisset.

### English translation (Claude)

So, to go over it again: the flesh which God built with his own hands in the image of God; which he animated with his own breath in the likeness of his own life; which he set over his whole work to dwell in, to enjoy, and to rule it; which he clothed with his sacraments and his disciplines; whose purity he loves, whose chastenings he approves, whose sufferings he counts precious to himself: shall this not rise again, so many times God's own? Far be it, far be it, that God should abandon to everlasting destruction the work of his hands, the care of his genius, the sheath of his breath, the queen of his building, the heir of his generosity, the priest of his religion, the soldier of his testimony, the sister of his Christ! We know that God is good; from his Christ we learn that he alone is the best. He who commands love for one's neighbour after love for himself will himself do what he has commanded. He will love the flesh, his neighbour in so many ways: though weak, yet “power is made perfect in weakness”; though feeble, yet “only those who are ill need a physician”; though dishonourable, yet “on the less honourable we bestow the greater honour”; though lost, yet “I came,” he says, “to save what was lost”; though sinful, yet “I prefer,” he says, “the salvation of the sinner to his death”; though condemned, yet “I will strike,” he says, “and I will heal.” Why reproach the flesh with the very things that wait for God, that hope in God? Those he helps are honoured by him. I would dare to say: if these things had not befallen the flesh, kindness, grace, mercy, and every beneficent power of God would have had nothing to do.

### Scripture references

- Mark 10:18: allusion, medium confidence
- Matt 22:39: allusion, medium confidence
- 2 Cor 12:9: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 9:12: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 12:23: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 19:10: quotation, high confidence
- Ezek 33:11: quotation, medium confidence
- Deut 32:39: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The quotations are 2 Cor 12:9, Matt 9:12, 1 Cor 12:23, Luke 19:10, Ezek 33:11 (cf. 18:23), and Deut 32:39; allusions to Mark 10:18 (none good but God) and Matt 22:37–39. “Sacraments” here are the Christian rites of ch. 8.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 9 (CSEL 47:37–38; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/1/#p-9).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 10

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/1/#p-10
- Source: CSEL 47:38–39
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Scripture both humbles and honours the flesh, and Paul, who speaks against the flesh, also calls the body God's temple and Christ's members.

### Latin text

Tenes scripturas, quibus caro infuscatur: tene etiam quibus inlustratur; legis cum quando deprimitur, adige oculos et cum quando releuatur. omnis caro foenum. non hoc solum pronuntiauit Esaias, sed et: omnis caro uidebit salutare dei. notatur in Genesi dicens deus: non manebit spiritus meus in hominibus istis, quia caro sunt. sed et auditur per Iohelem: effundam de spiritu meo in omnem carnem. apostolum quoque ne de uno stilo noris, quo carnem plerumque compungit. nam etsi negat habitare boni quicquam in carne sua, etsi adfirmat eos, qui in carne sint, deo placere non posse, quia concupiscat aduersus spiritum, et si qua alia ita ponit, ut carnis non tam actus, sed substantia inhonoretur, dicemus quidem alibi nihil proprie carni exprobrari oportere nisi in animae suggillationem, quae carnem ministerio sibi subigit, uerum interim et in illis litteris Paulus est, cum stigmata Christi in corpore suo portat, cum corpus nostrum ut dei templum uitiari uetat, cum corpora nostra membra Christi facit, cum monet tollere et magnificare deum in corpore nostro. itaque si ignominiae carnis resurrectionem eius expellunt, cur non dignitates potius inducent? quoniam deo magis congruit in salutem redigere quod reprobarit interdum, quam in perditionem dedere quod etiam probarit.

### English translation (Claude)

You hold the Scriptures by which the flesh is darkened; hold also those by which it is brightened. When you read where it is pressed down, turn your eyes also to where it is lifted up. “All flesh is grass.” Isaiah did not declare this only, but also: “All flesh shall see the salvation of God.” In Genesis God is recorded as saying, “My Spirit shall not remain in these men, because they are flesh”; but through Joel he is also heard: “I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh.” Do not know the apostle, either, from the one stroke of the pen with which he mostly stings the flesh. For although he denies that any good dwells in his flesh, although he affirms that those who are in the flesh cannot please God, because the flesh lusts against the spirit, and although he puts other things so that not so much the flesh's acts as its substance seems dishonoured (we shall say elsewhere that nothing ought properly to be charged against the flesh except to the discredit of the soul, which subjects the flesh to its own service), yet meanwhile Paul is in those letters too, when he bears the marks of Christ in his body, when he forbids our body, as the temple of God, to be defiled, when he makes our bodies members of Christ, when he urges us to lift up and glorify God in our body. So if the disgraces of the flesh drive out its resurrection, why should its honours not rather bring it in? For it befits God more to bring back to salvation what he has sometimes rejected than to hand over to destruction what he has also approved.

### Scripture references

- Isa 40:6: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 40:5: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 6:3: quotation, high confidence
- Joel 2:28: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 7:18: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 8:8: allusion, high confidence
- Gal 5:17: allusion, high confidence
- Gal 6:17: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 3:16: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 6:15: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 6:20: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The quotations and allusions are Isa 40:6, Isa 40:5, Gen 6:3, Joel 2:28, Rom 7:18, Rom 8:8, Gal 5:17, Gal 6:17, 1 Cor 3:16–17, 1 Cor 6:15, and 1 Cor 6:20.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 10 (CSEL 47:38–39; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/1/#p-10).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 11

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/1/#p-11
- Source: CSEL 47:39–40
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Those who deny the resurrection live most carnally; God, who made the world out of nothing (or even from matter), can surely remake the flesh.

### Latin text

Hucusque de praeconio carnis aduersus inimicos et nihilominus amicissimos eius. nemo enim tam carnaliter uiuit quam qui negant carnis resurrectionem. negantes enim poenam despiciunt et disciplinam. de quibus luculente et paracletus per prophetidem Priscam: carnes sunt, et carnem oderunt. quam si tanta auctoritas munit, quanta illi ad meritum salutis patrocinari possit, numquid etiam dei ipsius potentiam et potestatem et licentiam recensere debemus, an tantus sit, qui ualeat dilapsum et deuoratum et quibuscumque modis ereptum tabernaculum carnis reaedificare atque restituere? an et aliqua nobis exempla huius sui iuris in publico naturae promulgarit? ne qui forte adhuc sciant deum nosse, qui non alia lege credendus est, quam ut omnia posse credatur, plane apud philosophos habes, qui mundum hunc (000) innatum infectumque defendant. sed multo melius, quod omnes fere haereses natum et factum mundum annuentes conditionem deo nostro adscribunt. igitur confide illum totum hoc ex nihilo protulisse et deum nosti fidendo, quod tantum deus ualeat. nam et quidam, infirmiores hoc prius credere, de materia potius subiacenti uolunt ab illo uniuersitatem dedicatam secundum philosophos. porro et si ita in uero haberet, cum tamen longe alias substantias longeque alias species ex reformatione materiae diceretur protulisse quam fuisset ipsa materia, non minus defenderem ex nihilo eum protulisse, si ea protulerat, quae omnino non fuerant quo enim interest ex nihilo quid proferri an ex aliquo, dum quod non fuit fiat, quando etiam non fuisse nihil sit fuisse? sic et fuisse e contrario non nihil est fuisse. nunc etsi interest, tamen utrumque mihi adplaudit. siue enim ex nihilo deus molitus est cuncta, poterit et carnem in nihilum perductam exprimere de nihilo: siue de materia modulatus est alia, poterit et carnem quocumque dehaustam euocare de alio. et utique idoneus est reficere qui fecit: quanto plus est fecisse quam refecisse, initium dedisse quam reddidisse, ita restitutionem carnis faciliorem credas institutione.

### English translation (Claude)

So far the praise of the flesh against its enemies, who are nonetheless its greatest friends. For no one lives so carnally as those who deny the resurrection of the flesh; denying it, they despise both punishment and discipline. Of them the Paraclete too has spoken plainly through the prophetess Prisca: “They are flesh, and they hate the flesh.” If so great an authority protects the flesh, as great as can plead for it toward the merit of salvation, must we not also review the might and power and freedom of God himself, whether he is great enough to be able to rebuild and restore the tabernacle of the flesh, dissolved and devoured and snatched away in whatever manner? Or whether he has published for us any examples of this right of his in the open field of nature? In case some should still suppose they know God, who is to be believed on no other terms than that he is believed able to do all things: you certainly have among the philosophers those who maintain that this world is unborn and unmade. But it is much better that almost all the heresies, granting that the world was born and made, ascribe its founding to our God. Be confident, then, that he brought forth this whole out of nothing, and you have known God by trusting that God is so powerful. For some, too weak to believe this first, would rather have the universe produced by him out of an underlying matter, following the philosophers. Yet even if that were really so, since he would be said to have brought forth, by reshaping matter, substances far different and forms far different from what the matter itself had been, I would no less maintain that he brought them forth from nothing, if he brought forth things that had not existed at all. For what difference does it make whether something is brought forth from nothing or from something, so long as what was not comes to be, since even “not to have been” is to have been nothing? So, conversely, “to have been” is to have been not nothing. Now, even if there is a difference, both still support me. For if God constructed all things out of nothing, he will be able also to draw out of nothing the flesh reduced to nothing; or if he shaped them from other matter, he will be able also to call forth the flesh from something else, wherever it has been swallowed up. And surely he who made is fit to remake, since it is more to have made than to have remade, to have given a beginning than to have given back; so you may believe the restoration of the flesh easier than its first making.

### Scripture references

- 2 Cor 5:1: echo, low confidence

### Translation notes

- The saying of the prophetess Prisca (Priscilla) is an oracle of the New Prophecy (Montanism), which Tertullian accepts as the Paraclete's. The clause “ne qui forte adhuc sciant deum nosse” is difficult and the rendering “in case some should still suppose they know God” is uncertain. The digital text's “(000)” before “innatum” is unexplained junk and is ignored. “Tabernacle of the flesh” echoes 2 Cor 5:1.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 11 (CSEL 47:39–40; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/1/#p-11).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 12

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/1/#p-12
- Source: CSEL 47:40–42
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Nature teaches resurrection before Scripture does: day and night, the seasons, and seeds all die and return, so the flesh for whose sake they exist will not perish.

### Latin text

Aspice nunc ad ipsa quoque exempla diuinae potestatis. dies moritur in noctem et tenebris usquequaque sepelitur. funestatur mundi honor, omnis substantia denigratur. sordent silent stupent cuncta, ubique iustitium est. [quies rerum] ita lux amissa. lugetur. et tamen rursus cum suo cultu cum t dote cum sole eadem et integra et tota uniuerso orbi reuiuescit, interficiens mortem suam, noctem, rescindens sepulturam suam, tenebras, heres sibimet existens, donec et nox reuiuescat, cum suo et illa suggestu. redaccenduntur enim et stellarum radii, quos matutina succensio extinxerat; reducuntur et siderum absentiae, quas temporalis distinctio exemerat; redornantur et specula lunae, quae menstruus numerus adtriuerat reuoluuntur hiemes et aestates, uerna et autumna cum suis uiribus moribus fructibus. quippe etiam terrae de caelo disciplina est: arbores uestire post spolia, flores denuo colorare, herbas rursus imponere, exhibere eadem quam absumpta sint semina nec prius exhibere quam absumpta. mira ratio: de fraudatrice seruatrix; ut reddat, intercipit; ut custodiat, perdit; ut integret, uitiat; ut etiam ampliet, prius decoquit. siquidem uberiora et cultiora restituit quam exterminauit, reuera fenore interitu et iniuria usura et lucro damno. semel dixerim: uniuersa conditio recidiua est. quodcumque conueneris, fuit; quodcumque amiseris, (erit.) nihil non iterum est; omnia in statum redeunt cum abscesserint, omnia incipiunt cum desierint. ideo finiuntur, ut fiant; nihil deperit nisi in salutem. totus igitur hic ordo reuolubilis rerum testatio est resurrectionis mortuorum. operibus eam praescripsit deus ante quam litteris, uiribus praedicauit ante quam uocibus. praemisit tibi naturam magistram, summissurus et prophetiam, quo facilius credas prophetiae discipulus naturae, quo statim admittas, cum audieris quod ubique iam uideris, nec dubites deum carnis etiam resuscitatorem, quem omnium noris restitutorem. et utique si omnia homini resurgunt, cui procurata. sunt, porro non homini nisi et carni, quale est, ut ipsa depereat in totum, propter quam et cui nihil deperit?

### English translation (Claude)

Look now at the very examples of divine power. Day dies into night and is buried everywhere in darkness. The world's splendour goes into mourning; every substance is blackened. All things are dingy, silent, stunned; everywhere business stands still. So the lost light is mourned. And yet again, with its adornment, its dowry, its sun, the same, entire and whole, it comes back to life for the whole world, slaying its own death, night, tearing open its own tomb, darkness, becoming its own heir, until night too comes back to life, it too with its own array. For the rays of the stars are rekindled, which the morning's kindling had put out; the absent constellations are brought back, which the season's division had removed; the mirrors of the moon are adorned again, which its monthly count had worn away. Winters and summers revolve, springs and autumns, with their powers, their ways, their fruits. Indeed the earth too takes its discipline from heaven: to clothe the trees after they have been stripped, to colour the flowers anew, to spread the grass again, to bring forth the same seeds that were consumed, and not to bring them forth before they are consumed. A wonderful principle: from a defrauder, a preserver; to give back, it takes away; to keep, it loses; to make whole, it damages; to enlarge, it first diminishes. For it restores things richer and finer than it destroyed, truly with profit out of ruin, interest out of injury, gain out of loss. To say it once for all: the whole creation is recurrent. Whatever you meet has been; whatever you lose will be. Nothing is that is not again. All things return to their state when they have gone; all things begin when they have ceased. They end so that they may come to be; nothing perishes except for its preservation. This whole revolving order of things, then, is a testimony to the resurrection of the dead. God prescribed it in works before he did in letters; he preached it by powers before by words. He sent nature ahead as your teacher, intending to send prophecy after, so that as the pupil of nature you might more readily believe prophecy, might admit at once what you hear when you have already seen it everywhere, and might not doubt that God is the raiser even of the flesh, whom you know to be the restorer of all things. And surely, if all things rise again for man, for whom they were provided, and not for man unless for the flesh too, how can it be that the flesh itself should perish entirely, for whose sake and for which nothing perishes?

### Translation notes

- “[quies rerum]” (“the stillness of things”), bracketed in the edition as a deletion, is left out. A stray “t” before “dote” in the digital text is ignored.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 12 (CSEL 47:40–42; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/1/#p-12).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 13

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/1/#p-13
- Source: CSEL 47:42
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The phoenix, which dies in fire and rises again, is a living example of resurrection, and Scripture itself says the righteous will flourish like the phoenix.

### Latin text

Si parum uniuersitas resurrectionem figurat, si nihil tale conditio signat, quia singula eius non tam mori quam desinere dicantur nec redanimari sed reformari existimentur, accipe plenissimum atque firmissimum huius spei specimen, siquidem animalis est res, et uitae obnoxia et morti: illum dico alitem orientis peculiarem, de singularitate famosum, de posteritate monstruosum, qui semetipsum libenter funerans renouat, natali fine decedens atque succedens, iterum phoenix ubi nemo iam, iterum ipse qui non iam, alius idem. quid expressius atque signatius in hanc causam? aut cui alii rei tale documentum? deus etiam (in) scripturis suis: et florebis enim, inquit, uelut phoenix, id est de morte, de funere, uti credas de ignibus quoque substantiam corporis exigi posse. multis passeribus antestare nos dominus pronuntiauit: si non et phoenicibus, nihil magnum. sed homines semel interibunt, auibus Arabiae de resurrectione securis?

### English translation (Claude)

If the universe is too slight a figure of the resurrection, if creation signifies nothing of the kind, because its several parts are said not so much to die as to cease, and are thought not to be re-animated but re-formed, take the fullest and firmest specimen of this hope, since it is a living thing, subject both to life and to death. I mean that bird peculiar to the East, famous for its uniqueness, prodigious in its posterity, which willingly makes its own funeral and so renews itself, departing and succeeding itself at an end that is a birthday: again a phoenix where there is none any more, again itself which is no longer, another and the same. What could be more expressive and more to the point for this cause? Or of what else is it such a proof? God too says in his Scriptures: “For you shall flourish like the phoenix,” that is, out of death, out of the funeral, so that you may believe that the substance of the body can be recovered even from fire. The Lord declared that we are worth more than many sparrows: if not more than phoenixes too, it is no great thing. But shall men perish once for all, while the birds of Arabia are sure of their resurrection?

### Scripture references

- Ps 92:12 (91:13 LXX; 91:13 Vulg.): quotation, medium confidence
- Matt 10:31: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- 1 Clem. 25 (1 Clement): echo, low confidence

### Translation notes

- The quotation is Ps 92:12 (91:13 LXX/Vulg.), where the Greek φοῖνιξ and the Latin phoenix mean “palm tree”; Tertullian takes it as the bird. “Worth more than many sparrows” is Matt 10:31. The phoenix as an image of resurrection also appears in 1 Clem. 25.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 13 (CSEL 47:42; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/1/#p-13).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 14

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/14/#p-14
- Source: CSEL 47:42–44
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The cause of the resurrection is God's judgment: since the whole man, body and soul, lived and acted, the whole man must be raised to be judged.

### Latin text

Talia interim diuinarum uirium liniamenta non minus parabolis operato deo quam locuto, ueniamus et ad ipsa edicta atque decreta eius, quo cum maxime diuisionem iustam materiae ordinamus: exorsi enim sumus ab auctoritate carnis, an ea sit, cui dilapsae salus competat, dehinc prosecuti de potentia dei, an tanta sit, quae salutem conferre dilapsae rei ualeat; nunc, si probauimus utrumque, uelim etiam de causa requiras, an sit aliqua tam digna, quae resurrectionem carnis necessariam et rationi certe omni modo debitam uindicet, quia subest dicere: etsi caro capax restitui, etsi diuinitas idonea restituendi, et sic causa restitutionis praeesse debebit. accipe igitur et causam, qui apud deum discis tam optimum quam et iustum, de suo optimum, de nostro iustum. nisi enim homo deliquisset, optimum solummodo deum nosset ex naturae proprietate. at nunc etiam iustum eum patitur ex causae necessitate, tamen et hoc ipso optimum, dum et iustum. et bono enim iuuando et malo puniendo iustitiam exhibens utramque sententiam bono praestat, hinc uindicans istud, inde remunerans illud. sed cum Marcione plenius disces, an hoc sit dei totum. interim [talis est noster] merito iudex, quia dominus, merito dominus, quia auctor, merito auctor, quia deus. hinc et ille nescio quis haereticorum: merito non iudex, non enim dominus, merito non dominus, non enim auctor. nescio iam, si deus, qui nec auctor, quod deus, nec dominus, (quod) auctor. igitur si deo et domino et auctori congruentissimum est iudicium in hominem destinare de hoc ipso, an dominum et auctorem suum agnoscere et obseruare curarit an non, id utique iudicium [resurrectio] expunget. haec erit tota causa, immo necessitas resurrectionis, congruentissima scilicet deo, destinatori iudicii. de cuius dispositione dispicias, an utrique substantiae humanae diiudicandae censura diuina praesideat, tam animae quam et carni. quod enim congruet iudicari, hoc competet etiam resuscitari. dicimus plenum primo perfectumque credendum iudicium dei, ut ultimum iam atque exinde perpetuum, ut sic quoque iustum, dum non in aliquo minus, ut sic quoque deo dignum, dum pro tanta eius patientia plenum atque perfectum. atquin plenitudinem perfectionemque iudicii nonnisi de totius hominis repraesentatione constare. totum porro hominem ex utriusque substantiae concretione parere, idcircoque in utraque exhibendum quem totum oporteat iudicari, qui nisi totus utique non uixerit. qualis ergo uixerit, talem iudicatuiri, quia de eo, quod uixerit, habeat iudicari. uita est enim causa iudicii, per tot substantias dispungenda per quot et functa est.

### English translation (Claude)

Such, meanwhile, are the outlines of the divine powers, God having worked in parables no less than he has spoken; let us come now to his very edicts and decrees, by which above all we are arranging a just division of the subject. For we began from the authority of the flesh, whether it is such that salvation befits it after it has decayed; then we went on to the power of God, whether it is great enough to be able to confer salvation on a thing that has decayed. Now, if we have proved both, I would have you inquire also about the cause, whether there is one so worthy as to claim the resurrection of the flesh as necessary and in every way owed to reason; for it remains to say: even if the flesh is capable of restoration, even if the divinity is able to restore it, a cause for restoration must also be at hand. Receive, then, the cause as well, you who learn that with God there is both the best and also the just: best of his own, just on our account. For had man not sinned, he would have known God only as best, from the property of his nature. But now he experiences him as just as well, from the necessity of the cause; yet in this very thing God is best, while he is also just. For in showing justice both by helping the good and by punishing the evil, he makes both sentences serve the good, avenging the one, rewarding the other. But with Marcion you will learn more fully whether this is the whole of God. Meanwhile, he is rightly judge because Lord, rightly Lord because author, rightly author because God. Hence that heretic too, whoever he is: “Rightly not judge, for not Lord; rightly not Lord, for not author.” I do not know now whether he is God, who is neither author, which God is, nor Lord, which the author is. If, then, it is most fitting for God, as Lord and author, to appoint a judgment upon man concerning this very thing, whether or not he took care to acknowledge and observe his Lord and author, that judgment will surely be carried out. This will be the whole cause, indeed the necessity, of the resurrection, most fitting, of course, to God who appoints the judgment. Consider, as to how it is arranged, whether the divine sentence presides over the judging of both human substances, the soul as well as the flesh. For what is fit to be judged will be fit also to be raised. We say, first, that the judgment of God must be believed full and complete, since it is final and thereafter everlasting; so that it is also just, lacking in nothing; so that it is also worthy of God, full and complete in proportion to his great patience. But the fullness and completeness of judgment consists only in the presentation of the whole man. And the whole man appears from the union of both substances, and therefore he must be presented in both, since he must be judged whole, who certainly did not live except as whole. As he lived, then, so will he be judged, because he must be judged concerning what he lived. For life is the cause of judgment, to be reckoned up through as many substances as it was carried out by.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Tertullian, Marc. (Against Marcion): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The reference to Marcion is to Tertullian's Against Marcion (esp. books 1–2 on God's goodness and justice). Two phrases bracketed in the edition as deletions are left out: “[talis est noster]” and “[resurrectio]”. “(quod)” is the edition's supplement.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 14 (CSEL 47:42–44; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/14/#p-14).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 15

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/14/#p-15
- Source: CSEL 47:44–45
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Flesh and soul act together even in thought, so God, as a just judge, must reward or punish the flesh along with the soul.

### Latin text

Age iam scindant aduersarii nostri carnis animaeque contextum prius in uitae administratione, ut ita audeant scindere illud etiam in uitae remuneratione. negent operarum societatem, ut merito possint etiam mercedum negare. non sit particeps in sententia caro, si non fuerit et in causa. sola anima reuocetur, si sola decedit. at enim non magis sola decedit quam sola decucurrit illud, unde decedit, uitam hanc dico. adeo autem non sola anima transigit uitam, ut nec cogitatus, licet solos, licet non ad effectum per carnem deductos, auferamus a collegio carnis, siquidem in carne et cum carne et per carnem agitur ab anima quod agitur in corde. hanc denique carnis speciem arcem animae etiam dominus in suggillatione cogitatuum taxat: quid cogitatis in cordibus uestris nequam? et: qui conspexerit. ad concupiscendum, iam adulterauit in corde. adeo et sine opere et sine effectu cogitatus carnis est actus. sed etsi in cerebro uel in medio superciliorum discrimine uel ubiubi philosophis placet principalitas sensuum consecrata est, quod ἡγεμονικόν appellatur, caro erit omne animae cogitatorium. numquam anima sine carne est, (quamdiu in carne est.) nihil non cum illa agit, sine qua non est. quaere adhuc, an cogitatus quoque per carnem administrantur, qui per carnem dinoscuntur extrinsecus. uolutet aliquid anima: uultus operatur indicium, facies intentionum omnium speculum est. negent factorum societatem cui negare non possunt cogitatorum. et illi quidem delinquentias carnis enumerant: ergo peccatrix tenebitur supplicio. nos uero etiam uirtutes carnis opponimus: ergo et bene operata tenebitur praemio. et si anima est, quae agit et impellit in omnia, carnis obsequium est. deum non licet aut iniustum iudicem credi aut inertem; iniustum, si sociam bonorum operum a praemiis arceat, inertem, si sociam malorum a suppliciis secernat, cum humana censura eo perfectior habeatur, quo etiam ministros facti cuiusque deposcit, nec parcens nec inuidens illis, quominus cum auctoribus aut poenae aut gratiae communicent fructum.

### English translation (Claude)

Come now, let our adversaries first sever the bond of flesh and soul in the conduct of life, so that they may then dare to sever it in the reward of life too. Let them deny partnership in the works, so that they may rightly deny it in the wages also. Let the flesh have no share in the sentence if it had none in the cause. Let the soul alone be recalled, if it alone departs. But it no more departs alone than it alone ran through that from which it departs, this life, I mean. So far is the soul from passing through life alone that we do not remove even thoughts, though alone, though not carried into effect through the flesh, from partnership with the flesh, since what is done by the soul in the heart is done in the flesh, with the flesh, and through the flesh. This very part of the flesh, the citadel of the soul, the Lord also takes to task when he rebukes thoughts: “Why do you think evil in your hearts?” and “Whoever has looked in order to lust has already committed adultery in his heart.” So thought, even without deed and without effect, is an act of the flesh. But even if the governing seat of the senses, which is called the ἡγεμονικόν, is enshrined in the brain, or in the space between the eyebrows, or wherever the philosophers please, the whole thinking-place of the soul will be flesh. The soul is never without the flesh, as long as it is in the flesh; it does nothing without that without which it does not exist. Ask further whether thoughts too are not carried on through the flesh, since they are discerned outwardly through the flesh. Let the soul turn something over: the face gives the sign; the countenance is the mirror of all intentions. Let them deny partnership in deeds to that to which they cannot deny partnership in thoughts. They, indeed, list the misdeeds of the flesh: then as a sinner it will be held for punishment. We, however, set against them the virtues of the flesh as well: then, having done well, it will be held for reward. And even if it is the soul that acts and impels in all things, the obedience belongs to the flesh. It is not lawful to believe God either an unjust or an idle judge: unjust if he bars the partner in good works from the rewards, idle if he separates the partner in evil ones from the punishments; since human justice is held the more complete the more it demands also the agents of each deed, neither sparing nor grudging them, but letting them share with the principals the fruit of either penalty or favour.

### Scripture references

- Matt 9:4: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 5:28: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The quotations are Matt 9:4 and Matt 5:28. The Greek word ἡγεμονικόν (the Stoic “ruling part” of the soul) is garbled in the digital text (“fje[i.ovtxv”) and restored.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 15 (CSEL 47:44–45; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/14/#p-15).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 16

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/14/#p-16
- Source: CSEL 47:45–47
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The flesh is not a mere tool like a cup or a sword but the soul's partner from the womb, which Paul calls both a vessel and the outer man; it therefore shares in judgment and reward.

### Latin text

Sed cum imperium animae, obsequium carni distribuimus, prospiciendum est, ne et hoc alia argumentatione subuertant, ut uelint carnem secus in officio animae collocare, non quasi ministram, ne et sociam cogantur agnoscere. dicent enim ministros et socios habere arbitrium ministrandi atque sociandi et potestatem suae uoluntatis in utrumque, homines scilicet et ipsos; idcirco cum auctoribus merita communicare, quibus operam sponte accommodarint: carnem autem nihil sapientem, nihil sentientem per semetipsam, non uelle non nolle de suo habentem, uice potius uasculi apparere animae, ut instrumentum, non ut ministerium. itaque animae t solius iudicium praesidere, qualiter usa sit uasculo carnis, uasculum uero ipsum non esse sententiae obnoxium, quia nec calicem damnari, si quis eum ueneno temperarit, nec gladium ad bestias pronuntiari, si quis eo latrocinium fuerit operatus. iam ergo innocens caro ex ea parte, qua non reputabuntur illi operae malae, et nihil prohibet innocentiae nomine saluam eam fieri. licet enim nec bona opera reputentur illi sicut nec mala, diuinae tamen benignitati magis competit innocentes liberare. beneficos enim debet; optimi est autem, etiam quod non debetur offerre. et tamen calicem, non dico uenenarium, in quem mors aliqua ructarit, sed frictricis uel archigalli uel gladiatoris aut carnificis spiritu infectum, quaero, an minus damnes quam oscula ipsorum? nostris quoque sordibus nubilum uel non pro animo temperatum elidere solemus, quo magis puero irascamur. gladium uero latrociniis ebrium quis non a domo tota, nedum a cubiculo, nedum a capitis sui officio religabit, praesumens scilicet nihil aliud se quam inuidias animarum somniaturum urguentium et inquietantium sanguinis sui concubinum? at enim et calix bene sibi conscius et de diligentia ministerii commendatus de coronis quoque potatoris sui inornabitur aut aspergine florum honorabitur, et gladius [bene] de bello cruentus et melior homicida laudem suam consecratione pensabit. est ergo et in uascula et in instrumenta sententiam figere, ut dominorum et auctorum meritis et ipsa communicent; ut huic quoque argumentationi satisfecerim, licet ab exemplo uacet diuersitas rerum. omne enim uas uel instrumentum aliunde in usus uenit, extranea omnino materia a substantia hominis; caro autem, ab exordio uteri consata conformata congenita animae, etiam in omni operatione miscetur illi. nam etsi uas uocatur apud apostolum, quod iubet in honore tractare, eadem tamen ab eodem homo appellatur exterior, ille scilicet limus, qui prior titulo hominis incisus est, non calicis aut gladii aut uasculi ullius. uas enim capacitatis nomine dicta est, qua animam capit et continet, homo uero de communione naturae, quae eam non instrumentum in operationibus praestat, sed ministerium. ita et [ministerium] tenebitur iudicio, ut de suo nihil sapiat, quia portio est eius, quae sapit, non suppellex. hoc et apostolus, sciens nihil carnem agere per semetipsam quod non animae deputetur, nihilominus peccatricem iudicat carnem, ne eo, quod ab anima uideatur impelli, iudicio liberata credatur. sic et cum aliquas laudis operas carni indicit: glorificate, tollite deum in corpore uestro, certus et hos conatus ab anima agi, idcirco tamen et carni eos mandat, quia et illi fructum repromittit. alioquin nec exprobratio competisset in alienam culpae nec adhortatio in extraneam gloriae; et exprobratio enim et exhortatio uacarent erga carnem, si uacaret et merces, quae in resurrectione captatur.

### English translation (Claude)

But when we assign command to the soul and obedience to the flesh, we must take care that they do not overturn this too with another argument, wishing to place the flesh in the soul's service in some other way, not as a minister, lest they be forced to acknowledge it as a partner too. For they will say that ministers and partners have the choice of serving and of sharing and power of their own will in both, being men themselves; that they therefore share merits with the principals to whom they have freely lent their work; but that the flesh, knowing nothing and feeling nothing by itself, having no willing or unwilling of its own, appears rather as a vessel of the soul, as an instrument, not as a minister. So, they say, the judgment concerns the soul alone, how it used the vessel of the flesh, while the vessel itself is not liable to sentence, since neither is a cup condemned if someone has mixed poison in it, nor a sword sentenced to the beasts if someone has committed robbery with it. So then the flesh is innocent in that respect, that evil works will not be charged to it, and nothing prevents it from being saved under the title of innocence. For even if good works are not credited to it, any more than evil ones, it better befits divine kindness to set the innocent free. For reward he owes to those who do good; but it belongs to the best to offer even what is not owed. And yet a cup (I do not say a poisoned one, into which some death has belched, but one tainted by the breath of a lewd woman, or a chief priest of Cybele, or a gladiator, or an executioner), I ask, do you condemn it less than their kisses? Even one clouded with our own dirt, or not mixed to our liking, we are used to dashing down, the more to vent our anger on the slave. And a sword drunk with robberies: who would not banish it from his whole house, not to say from his bedroom, not to say from its place at his head, presuming, of course, that he would dream of nothing but the grudges of the souls pressing on and troubling the bedfellow of their blood? But on the other hand, a cup with a good conscience, commended for the diligence of its service, will be adorned with its drinker's garlands too or honoured with a sprinkling of flowers; and a sword bloodied in war, a better killer, will be repaid with praise by consecration. So one can fix a sentence even on vessels and instruments, so that they too share in the merits of their masters and principals. So much to satisfy this argument too, although the difference of things empties the example. For every vessel or instrument comes into use from outside, a material wholly foreign to the substance of man; but the flesh, conceived, formed, and born together with the soul from the beginning in the womb, is also mingled with it in every operation. For although it is called a vessel by the apostle, which he bids us possess in honour, yet it is also called by him the outer man: that clay, namely, which was first engraved with the title of man, not of cup or sword or any vessel. It is called a vessel by reason of its capacity, by which it receives and contains the soul; but man from the fellowship of nature, which makes it not an instrument in operations but a minister. So it will be held to judgment, though it knows nothing of its own, because it is a part of that which knows, not a piece of furniture. The apostle too, knowing that the flesh does nothing by itself that is not charged to the soul, nevertheless judges the flesh a sinner, lest, because it seems to be driven by the soul, it be thought free from judgment. So too, when he enjoins praiseworthy works on the flesh (“Glorify and lift up God in your body”), sure that these efforts also are carried out by the soul, he still commands them to the flesh because he promises it the fruit as well. Otherwise neither reproach would have befitted it if the fault were another's, nor exhortation if the glory were foreign to it; for both reproach and exhortation would be empty as regards the flesh if the reward too were empty, which is looked for in the resurrection.

### Scripture references

- 1 Thess 4:4: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Cor 4:16: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 6:20: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions: 1 Thess 4:4 (the vessel held in honour), 2 Cor 4:16 (the outer man), Gen 2:7 (clay), 1 Cor 6:20 (glorify God in your body). “frictrix” (a woman of indecent practices) and “archigallus” (chief priest of Cybele) are persons Romans regarded as defiled. Two words bracketed in the edition as deletions are left out: “[bene]” and “[ministerium]”. A stray “t” (“animae t solius”) in the digital text is ignored.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 16 (CSEL 47:45–47; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/14/#p-16).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 17

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/14/#p-17
- Source: CSEL 47:47–48
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Though the soul is itself corporeal and already suffers or is comforted in the underworld, it must be judged with the flesh, through which it performed its deeds.

### Latin text

Simplicior quisque fautor sententiae nostrae putabit carnem etiam idcirco repraesentandam esse iudicio, quia aliter anima non capiat passionem tormenti seu refrigerii, utpote incorporalis. hoc enim uulgus existimat. nos autem animam corporalem et hic profitemur et in suo uolumine probauimus, habentem proprium genus [substantiae] soliditatis, per quam quid et sentire et pati possit. nam et nunc animas torqueri fouerique penes inferos, licet nudas, licet adhuc exules carnis, probabit Lazari exemplum. dedi igitur aduersario dicere: ergo quae habet corpulentiam propriam de suo sufficiet ad facultatem passionis et sensus, ut non egeat repraesentatione carnis. immo eatenus egebit, non qua sentire quid sine carne non possit, sed qua necesse est illam etiam cum carne sentire. quantum enim ad agendum de suo sufficit, tantum et ad patiendum. ad agendum autem minus de suo sufficit. habet enim de suo solummodo cogitare uelle cupere disponere, ad perficiendum autem operam carnis expectat. sic itaque et ad patiendum societatem carnis expostulat, ut tam plene per eam pati possit quam sine ea plene agere non potuit. et ideo in quae de suo sufficit, eorum interim sententiam pendit, concupiscentiae et cogitatus et uoluntatis. porro si haec satis essent ad plenitudinem meritorum, ut non requirerentur et facta, sufficeret in totum anima ad perfectionem iudicii, de his iudicanda, in quae agenda sola suffecerat. cum uero etiam facta deuincta sint meritis, facta autem per carnem administrentur, iam non sufficit animam sine carne foueri sine cruciari pro operibus etiam carnis. etsi habet corpus, etsi habet membra, proinde illi non sufficiunt ad sentiendum quam nec ad agendum perfecte. idcirco pro quo modo egit, pro eo et patitur apud inferos, prior degustans iudicium, sicut prior induxit admissum, expectans tamen et carnem, ut per illam etiam facta compenset, cui cogitata mandauit. denique haec erit ratio in ultimum finem destinati iudicii, ut exhibitione carnis omnis diuina censura perfici possit. alioquin non sustineretur in finem, quod et nunc animae decerpuntur apud inferos. [si solis animabus destinaretur.]

### English translation (Claude)

The simpler supporter of our view will think that the flesh must be presented at the judgment for this reason too, that otherwise the soul, being incorporeal, could not undergo the experience of torment or of refreshment. So the crowd thinks. We, however, both declare here and have proved in its own volume that the soul is corporeal, having its own kind of solidity, by which it can both feel and suffer something. For that souls even now are tormented and comforted in the underworld, though naked, though still exiles from the flesh, the example of Lazarus will prove. I have given the adversary occasion, then, to say: “So the soul, having a bodiliness of its own, will suffice of itself for the capacity to suffer and feel, so as not to need the flesh presented.” Yes, it will need it to this extent: not because it cannot feel anything without the flesh, but because it must also feel with the flesh. For as far as it suffices of itself for acting, so far does it suffice for suffering. But for acting it is less than sufficient of itself; for it has of itself only thinking, willing, desiring, and planning, but for carrying out it waits for the work of the flesh. So too for suffering it requires partnership with the flesh, that it may suffer as fully through the flesh as it could not act fully without it. And therefore, for the things in which it suffices of itself, desire, thought, and will, it pays the penalty meanwhile. Now, if these were enough for the full measure of deserts, so that deeds were not required as well, the soul would be wholly sufficient for the completion of judgment, being judged for the things for whose doing it alone had sufficed. But since deeds too are bound up with deserts, and deeds are carried out through the flesh, it is no longer enough for the soul to be comforted or tortured without the flesh for the works of the flesh as well. Even if it has a body, even if it has members, these no more suffice for it to feel completely than to act completely. Therefore it suffers in the underworld in proportion to the way it acted, tasting judgment first, as it was first to lead on to the offence, yet waiting for the flesh as well, so that through the flesh it may also pay for the deeds to which it committed its thoughts. This, in short, will be the reason for the judgment appointed at the last end: that by the presentation of the flesh the whole divine sentence may be completed. Otherwise there would be no waiting until the end, since even now souls receive their foretaste in the underworld.

### Scripture references

- Luke 16:19: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Tertullian, An. (On the Soul): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Lazarus: Luke 16:19–31. The volume is Tertullian's On the Soul. Two phrases bracketed in the edition as deletions are left out: “[substantiae]” and the closing “[si solis animabus destinaretur]” (“if it were appointed for souls alone”). The last sentence (“quod et nunc animae decerpuntur”) is compressed; “receive their foretaste” is an interpretation.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 17 (CSEL 47:47–48; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/14/#p-17).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 18

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/14/#p-18
- Source: CSEL 47:48–51
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The phrase “resurrection of the dead” itself points to the flesh: only what falls can rise, and it is the body, not the soul, that falls in death and is buried.

### Latin text

Hucusque praestructionibus egerim ad muniendos sensus omnium scripturarum, quae carnis recidiuatum pollicentur. cui cum tot auctoritates iustorum patrociniorum procurent, honores dico substantiae ipsius, tum uires dei, tum exempla earum, tum rationes iudicii et necessitates ipsius, utique secundum praeiudicia tot auctoritatum scripturas intellegi oportebit, non secundum ingenia haereticorum, de sola incredulitate uenientia, quia incredibile habeatur restitui substantiam interitu subductam, non quia et substantiae ipsi inemeribile sit aut deo impossibile> aut iudicio inhabile. plane incredibile, si nec praedicatum diuinitus fuerit; nisi quod etsi praedicatum id a deo non fuisset, ultro praesumi debuisset, ut propterea non praedicatum, quia tot auctoritatibus praeiudicatum. at cum diuinis quoque uocibus personat, tanto abest, ut aliter intellegatur quam desiderant illa, a quibus etiam sine diuinis uocibus persuadetur. uideamus igitur hoc primum, quonam titulo spes ista proscripta sit. unum, opinor, apud omnes edictum dei pendet: resurrectio mortuorum. duo uerba expedita decisa detersa. ipsa conueniam, ipsa discutiam, cui se substantiae addicant. cum audio resurrectionem homini inminere, quaeram necesse est, quid eius cadere sortitum sit, siquidem nihil resurgere expectabit nisi quod ante succiderit. qui ignorat carnem cadere per mortem, potest eam nec stantem nosse per uitam. sententiam dei natura pronuntiat: terra es et in terram ibis, et qui non audit, uidet: nulla mors non ruina membrorum. hanc corporis sortem dominus quoque expressit, cum ipse substantia indutus diruite, inquit, templum istud, et ego illud triduo resuscitabo. ostendit enim, cuius sit dirui, cuius elidi, cuius iacere, cuius et releuari et resuscitari. — quamquam et animam circumferret trepidantem usque ad mortem, sed non cadentem per mortem, - quia et scriptura de corpore, inquit, suo dixerat. atque adeo caro est, quae morte subruitur, ut exinde a cadendo cadauer renuntietur. anima porro nec uocabulo cadit, quia nec habitu ruit. atquin ipsa est, quae ruinam corpori infert, cum efflata est, sicut ipsa est, quae illud de terra suscitauit ingressa. non potest cadere quae suscitauit ingressa; non potest ruere quae elidit egressa. artius dicam: ne in somnum quidem cadit anima cum corpore, ne tum quidem sternitur cum carne, sedenim agitatur in somnis et iactitatur; quiesceret autem, si iaceret. ita nec in ueritate mortis cadit quae nec in imagine eius ruit. sequens nunc uocabulum mortuorum aeque dispice, cui substantiae insidat. quamquam in hac materia admittamus interdum mortalitatem animae assignari ab haereticis, ut, si anima mortalis resurrectionem consecutura est, praeiudicium sit et carni non minus mortali resurrectionem communicaturae, sed nunc proprietas uocabuli uindicanda est suae sorti. iam quidem eo ipso, quod resurrectio caducae rei est, id est carnis, eadem erit et in nomine mortui. [quia caducae rei est resurrectio quae dicitur mortuorm] sic et per Abraham, patrem fidei, diuinae familiaritatis uirum, discimus. postulans enim Sarrae humandae locum de filiis Heth: date ergo, inquit, mihi possessionem sepulcri uobiscum, et humabo mortuum meum, carnem scilicet. neque enim animae humandae spatium desiderasset. et si anima mortalis crederetur, et si mortuus dici mereretur. quodsi mortuus corpus est, corporum erit resurrectio, cum dicitur mortuorum.

### English translation (Claude)

So far I have used preliminary arguments to fortify the sense of all the Scriptures that promise the renewal of the flesh. Since so many authorities of just pleading support it (I mean the honours of the substance itself, then the powers of God, then examples of them, then the reasons and the necessities of the judgment itself), the Scriptures must surely be understood according to the prior verdicts of so many authorities, not according to the ingenuity of the heretics, which comes from unbelief alone: because it is held incredible that a substance removed by death should be restored, not because it is undeserved by the substance itself, or impossible for God, or unsuited to judgment. Incredible indeed, if it had not been divinely proclaimed; except that even if it had not been proclaimed by God, it ought to have been presumed of our own accord, so that it would have gone unproclaimed only because so many authorities had already decided it. But since it resounds in divine utterances too, it is all the further from being understood otherwise than those authorities require, by which one is persuaded even without divine utterances. Let us see first, then, under what title this hope has been posted. One edict of God, I think, hangs before all: the resurrection of the dead. Two words, ready, clear-cut, clean. I will address these very words and examine to what substance they assign themselves. When I hear that resurrection awaits man, I must ask what part of him has been allotted to fall, since nothing will expect to rise again except what has first fallen down. He who does not know that the flesh falls through death may not know either that it stands through life. Nature pronounces God's sentence: “Earth you are, and into earth you shall go,” and he who does not hear it sees it: there is no death that is not a collapse of the limbs. This lot of the body the Lord too expressed when, himself clothed in the substance, he said: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” For he showed to what it belongs to be destroyed, to be dashed down, to lie, and also to be lifted up and raised again (though he was also carrying about a soul troubled even to death, yet not falling through death), for the Scripture says he had spoken of his body. And indeed it is the flesh that is overthrown by death, so that from falling (cadendo) it is thereafter called a corpse (cadauer). The soul, however, does not fall even in name, since it does not collapse in its condition. On the contrary, it is the soul that brings ruin on the body when it is breathed out, as it is the soul that raised it from the earth when it entered. What raised by entering cannot fall; what dashes down by departing cannot collapse. I will put it more closely: the soul does not fall with the body even into sleep; it is not laid low with the flesh even then, but in sleep it is stirred and tossed about; yet it would rest if it lay down. So it does not fall in the reality of death, since it does not collapse in its image. Now consider likewise the next word, “of the dead,” in what substance it resides. Although in this subject we sometimes grant that heretics assign mortality to the soul (so that if a mortal soul is to obtain resurrection, that prejudges that the flesh, no less mortal, will share in resurrection), yet now the proper sense of the word must be claimed for its own lot. By this very fact that resurrection belongs to a thing that falls, that is, the flesh, the same will hold for the name “dead.” So we learn also from Abraham, the father of faith, a man in God's friendship. For when he asked the sons of Heth for a place to bury Sarah, he said: “Give me, then, possession of a tomb among you, and I will bury my dead,” the flesh, of course. For he would not have wanted room to bury a soul, even if the soul were believed mortal and deserved to be called dead. But if “the dead” is the body, then the resurrection, when it is called “of the dead,” will be of bodies.

### Scripture references

- Gen 3:19: quotation, high confidence
- John 2:19: quotation, high confidence
- John 2:21: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 26:38: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 23:4: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The quotations are Gen 3:19, John 2:19, 21, and Gen 23:4; the troubled soul is Matt 26:38. The wordplay cadere/cadauer (“fall”/“corpse”) cannot be kept in English. The sentence “[quia caducae rei est resurrectio quae dicitur mortuorum]” is bracketed in the edition as a deletion and left out.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 18 (CSEL 47:48–51; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/14/#p-18).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 19

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/14/#p-19
- Source: CSEL 47:51–52
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Some heretics turn the resurrection into a figure for coming to knowledge or escaping the body, and deceive believers by saying one must “rise in this flesh.”

### Latin text

Et haec itaque dispectio tituli et praeconii ipsius, fidem utique defendens uocabulorum, illuc proficere debebit, ut, si quid diuersa pars turbat obtentu figurarum et aenigmatum, manifestiora quaeque praeualeant et [de] incertis certiora praescribant. nacti enim quidam sollemnissimam eloquii prophetici formam, allegorici et figurati plerumque, non tamen semper, resurrectionem quoque mortuorum manifeste adnuntiatam in imaginariam significationem distorquent, adseuerantes ipsam etiam mortem spiritaliter intellegendam. non enim hanc esse in uero, quae sit in medio, discidium carnis atque animae, sed ignorantiam dei, per quam homo mortuus deo non minus in sepulcro iacuerit quam in errore. itaque et resurrectionem eam uindicandam, qua quis adita ueritate redanimatus et reuiuificatus deo ignorantiae morte discussa uelut de sepulcro ueteris hominis eruperit, quia et dominus scribas et Pharisaeos sepulcris dealbatis adaequauerit. exinde ergo resurrectionem fide consecutos cum domino esse, cum eum in baptismate induerint. hoc denique ingenio etiam in conloquiis saepe nostros decipere consuerunt, quasi et ipsi resurrectionem carnis admittant. (uae», inquiunt, qui non in hac carne resurrexerit; ne statim illos percutiant, si resurrectionem statim abnuerint. tacite autem secundum conscientiam suam hoc sentiunt: uae, qui non, dum in hac carne est, cognouerit arcana haeretica; hoc est enim apud illos resurrectio. sed et plerique ab excessu animae resurrectionem uindicantes de sepulcro exire de saeculo euadere interpretantur, quia et saeculum mortuorum sit habitaculum, id est ignorantium deum, uel etiam de ipso corpore, quia et corpus uice sepulcri conclusam animam in saecularis uitae morte detineat.

### English translation (Claude)

This examination of the title and of the proclamation itself, defending the plain sense of the words, should serve this purpose: that if the other side causes confusion under cover of figures and riddles, the plainer passages prevail and the more certain rule over the uncertain. For some, having seized on the very customary form of prophetic speech, which is usually allegorical and figurative, though not always, twist even the resurrection of the dead, plainly announced, into an imaginary meaning, asserting that death itself too must be understood spiritually. Death in truth, they say, is not the one in plain view, the separation of flesh and soul, but ignorance of God, through which man, dead to God, has lain in error no less than in a tomb. And so the resurrection too must be claimed as that by which one, having come upon the truth, is re-animated and brought to life again for God, and, the death of ignorance shaken off, breaks out as from the tomb of the old man, since the Lord too likened the scribes and Pharisees to whitewashed tombs. From then on, therefore, those who have obtained the resurrection by faith are with the Lord, since they have put him on in baptism. With this cleverness they have often been accustomed to deceive our people even in conversation, as though they too admitted the resurrection of the flesh. “Woe,” they say, “to him who has not risen in this flesh,” so as not to strike them at once by denying the resurrection outright. But silently, in their own minds, they mean this: “Woe to him who has not come to know the heretical secrets while he is in this flesh”; for this is resurrection among them. And many too, claiming the resurrection from the moment of the soul's departure, interpret coming out of the tomb as escaping from the world, since the world too is the dwelling of the dead, that is, of those who do not know God; or even as coming out of the body itself, since the body too, like a tomb, keeps the soul shut up in the death of worldly life.

### Scripture references

- Matt 23:27: allusion, high confidence
- Eph 4:22: echo, medium confidence
- Gal 3:27: allusion, medium confidence
- 2 Tim 2:18: echo, low confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions: Matt 23:27 (whitewashed tombs), Eph 4:22 (the old man), Gal 3:27 (putting on Christ in baptism). The view described is Valentinian and resembles that rejected in 2 Tim 2:18. “[de]”, bracketed in the edition as a deletion, is left out.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 19 (CSEL 47:51–52; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/14/#p-19).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 20

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/14/#p-20
- Source: CSEL 47:52–53
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The prophets did not speak only in figures: Christ's birth, passion, and miracles, and the fates of nations, were foretold plainly and fulfilled literally.

### Latin text

Ob huiusmodi igitur coniecturas primam praestructionem eorum depellam, qua uolunt omnia prophetas per imagines contionatos; quando, si ita esset, ne ipsae quidem imagines distingui potuissent, si non et ueritates praedicatae fuissent, ex quibus imagines deliniarentur. atque adeo si omnia figurae, quid erit illud, cuius figurae? quomodo speculum obtendes. si nusquam est facies? adeo autem non omnia imagines sed et ueritates, nec omnia umbrae sed et corpora, ut in ipsum quoque dominum insigniora quaeque luce clarius praedicarentur. nam et uirgo concepit in utero non figurate, et peperit Emmanuhelem, nobiscum deum, [Iesum] non oblique; et si oblique accepturum uirtutem Damasci et spolia Samariae, sed manifeste uenturum in iudicium cum presbyteris et principibus populi. nam et tumultuatae sunt gentes in persona Pilati, et populi meditati sunt inania in persona Israhelis; astiterunt reges terrae, Herodes. et archontes congregati sunt in unum, Annas et Caiphas, aduersus dominum et aduersus Christum eius. qui et tamquam ouis ad iugulationem adductus est, et tamquam agnus ante tondentem, scilicet Herodem. sine uoce — sic non aperuit os suum — dorsum suum ponens ad flagella et maxillas in palmas et faciem non auertens a sputaminum iaculis; deputatus etiam inter iniquos, perfossus manus et pedes, sortem passus in uestimento et potus amaros et capitum inridentium nutus, triginta argenteis adpretiatus a proditore. quae hic figurae apud Esaiam, quae imagines apud Dauid, quae aenigmata apud Hieremiam, ne uirtutes quidem eius per parabolas profatos? aut numquid nec oculi patefacti sunt caecorum, nec inclaruit lingua mutorum, nec manus aridae et genua dissoluta reualuerunt, nec claudi salierunt ut ceruus? quae si et spiritaliter quoque interpretari solemus secundum comparationem animalium uitiorum a domino remediatorum, cum tamen et carnaliter adimpleta sunt, ostendunt prophetas in utramque speciem praedicasse, saluo eo, quod plures uoces eorum nudae et simplices et ab omni allegoriae nubilo purae defendi possunt: ut cum exitus gentium et urbium resonant, Tyri et Aegypti et Babylonis (et) Idumaeae et Cartaginensium nauium, ut cum ipsius Israhelis plagas aut uenias, captiuitates, restitutiones ultimaeque dispersionis exitum perorant. quis haec interpretabitur magis quam recognoscet? res in litteris tenentur, ut litterae in rebus leguntur. ita non semper nec in omnibus allegorica forma est prophetici eloquii, sed interdum et in quibusdam.

### English translation (Claude)

Because of conjectures of this kind, then, I will first overthrow their basic assumption, by which they would have the prophets preach everything in images. For if that were so, not even the images themselves could have been distinguished unless realities had also been proclaimed from which the images were drawn. Indeed, if everything is figure, what will that be of which they are figures? How will you hold up a mirror if there is no face anywhere? But so far is everything from being images that there are also realities; nor is everything shadows, there are also bodies; so that even about the Lord himself the most notable things were proclaimed more clearly than daylight. For the virgin conceived in her womb not figuratively, and bore Emmanuel, God with us, not obliquely. And though it was said obliquely that he would receive the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, it was said plainly that he would come into judgment with the elders and rulers of the people. For the nations raged in the person of Pilate, and the peoples imagined vain things in the person of Israel; the kings of the earth stood up, Herod, and the rulers were gathered together, Annas and Caiaphas, against the Lord and against his Christ. He too was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and like a lamb before the shearer, namely Herod, without a voice (so he did not open his mouth), giving his back to the scourges and his cheeks to blows, and not turning his face from the darts of spittle; reckoned also among the lawless, pierced in hands and feet, suffering the casting of lots for his garment, bitter drinks, and the nodding heads of mockers, valued at thirty pieces of silver by the betrayer. What figures are these in Isaiah, what images in David, what riddles in Jeremiah? Did they foretell even his mighty works in parables? Or were the eyes of the blind not opened, the tongue of the dumb not made clear, the withered hands and loosened knees not strengthened, the lame not leaping like a deer? Even if we are accustomed to interpret these spiritually as well, by comparison with the vices of the soul healed by the Lord, yet since they were also fulfilled in the flesh, they show that the prophets preached in both senses; granted that many of their utterances can be defended as bare and simple and clear of every cloud of allegory: as when they proclaim the downfall of nations and cities, of Tyre and Egypt and Babylon and Idumaea and the ships of Carthage; as when they declare the plagues or pardons of Israel itself, its captivities, its restorations, and the outcome of its final dispersion. Who will interpret these rather than recognize them? The events are contained in the writings, as the writings are read in the events. So the form of prophetic speech is not always, nor in everything, allegorical, but sometimes and in some things.

### Scripture references

- Isa 7:14: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 8:4: allusion, high confidence
- Isa 3:14: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 2:1: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 2:2: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 53:7: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 50:6: allusion, high confidence
- Isa 53:12: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 22:16 (21:17 LXX; 21:17 Vulg.): allusion, high confidence
- Ps 22:18 (21:19 LXX; 21:19 Vulg.): allusion, high confidence
- Ps 22:7 (21:8 LXX; 21:8 Vulg.): allusion, high confidence
- Ps 69:21 (68:22 LXX; 68:22 Vulg.): allusion, high confidence
- Zech 11:12: allusion, medium confidence
- Isa 35:5: allusion, high confidence
- Isa 35:6: allusion, high confidence
- Isa 23:1: allusion, medium confidence
- Acts 4:27: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations and allusions: Isa 7:14; Isa 8:4; Isa 3:14; Ps 2:1–2; Isa 53:7; Isa 50:6; Isa 53:12; Ps 22:16, 18, 7 (21:17, 19, 8 LXX/Vulg.); Ps 69:21 (68:22 LXX/Vulg.); Zech 11:12 (cited as Jeremiah in Matt 27:9); Isa 35:5–6. “The ships of Carthage” is the LXX/Old Latin rendering of “ships of Tarshish” (Isa 23:1). Tertullian applies the Psalm and Isaiah texts to Pilate, Herod, Annas, and Caiaphas, as in Acts 4:25–27. “[Iesum]”, bracketed in the edition as a deletion, is left out.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 20 (CSEL 47:52–53; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/14/#p-20).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 21

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/14/#p-21
- Source: CSEL 47:53–54
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The resurrection cannot be merely figurative, because the plain texts must govern the obscure and a hope on which faith and martyrdom depend must have been announced clearly.

### Latin text

Si ergo interdum et in quibusdam, inquis, cur non et in edicto resurrectionis spiritaliter intellegendae? quoniam quidem plurima ratio intercedit. primo enim quid facient tot alia instrumenta diuina, ita aperte corporalem contestantia resurrectionem, ut nullam admittant figuratae significantiae suspicionem? et utique aequum sit. quod et supra demandauimus, incerta de certis et obscura de manifestis praeiudicari, uel ne inter discordiam certorum et incertorum. manifestorum et obscurorum fides dissipetur, ueritas periclitetur, ipsa diuinitas ut inconstans denotetur. tunc, quod uerisimile non est, ut ea species sacramenti, in quam fides tota committitur, in quam disciplina tota conititur, ambigue adnuntiata et obscure proposita uideatur, quando spes resurrectionis, nisi manifesta de periculo et praemio. neminem ad eiusmodi praesertim religionem, publico odio et hostili elogio obnoxiam, persuaderet. nullum opus certum est mercedis incertae, nullus timor iustus est periculi dubii. et merces autem et periculum in resurrectionis pendet euentu. et si temporalia et localia et personalia dei decreta atque iudicia in urbes et gentes et reges tam aperte prophetia iaculata est, quale est, ut aeternae dispositiones eius et uniuersales in omne hominum genus lucem sui fugerint? quae quanto maiora. tanto clariora esse deberent, ut maiora crederentur. et puto deo nec liuorem nec dolum nec inconstantiam nec lenocinium adscribi posse, per quae fere promulgatio maiorum cauillatur.

### English translation (Claude)

“If, then, sometimes and in some things,” you say, “why not also in the edict of resurrection, so that it is to be understood spiritually?” Because a great many reasons stand in the way. First, what will so many other divine documents do, which testify to a bodily resurrection so openly as to admit no suspicion of figurative meaning? And surely it is fair, as we laid down above, that the uncertain be judged by the certain and the obscure by the plain, lest amid discord between the certain and the uncertain, the plain and the obscure, faith be scattered, truth be endangered, and the divinity itself be branded as inconsistent. Then, it is not likely that that part of the sacrament on which the whole faith is staked, on which the whole discipline rests, should appear ambiguously announced and obscurely set forth, since the hope of resurrection, unless it were plain about both peril and reward, would persuade no one, least of all to a religion of this kind, exposed to public hatred and hostile indictment. No work is sure whose wage is uncertain; no fear is just whose danger is doubtful. And both the wage and the danger hang on the event of the resurrection. And if prophecy has launched God's decrees and judgments, limited in time, place, and person, against cities, nations, and kings so openly, how could his eternal and universal dispositions for the whole human race have fled from their own light? The greater they are, the clearer they ought to be, so that they might be believed great. And I think neither envy nor deceit nor inconstancy nor seductive artifice can be ascribed to God, the usual means by which the announcement of great matters is made captious.

### Translation notes

- “Sacramentum” here means the sacred truth or mystery of the faith as a whole.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 21 (CSEL 47:53–54; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/14/#p-21).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 22

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/14/#p-22
- Source: CSEL 47:54–56
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Christ's discourse on the last things shows that the resurrection comes at his return, after the signs of the end, not now in the knowledge of the truth or at death.

### Latin text

Post haec ad illas etiam scripturas respiciendum est, quae non sinunt resurrectionem secundum animales istos, ne dixerim spiritales, aut hic iam in ueritatis agnitione praesumi aut ab excessu statim uitae uindicari. cum enim et tempora totius spei fixa sint sacrosancto stilo, — in aduentu, opinor Christi, — nec liceat eam ante constitui, uota nostra suspirant saeculi huius occasum, in transitum mundi quoque, ad diem domini magnum, diem irae et retributionis, diem ultimum et occultum nec ulli praeter patri notum, et tamen signis atque portentis et concussionibus elementorum et conflictationibus nationum praenotatum. euoluerem prophetias, si dominus ipse tacuisset - nisi quod et prophetiae uox erant domini — sed plus est, quod illas suo ore consignat. interrogatus a discipulis, quando. euentura essent quae interim de templi exitu eruperat, ordinem temporum primo Iudaicorum usque ad excidium Hierusalem, dehinc communium usque ad conclusionem saeculi digerit. nam posteaquam edixit: et tunc erit Hierusalem conculcatui nationibus, donec adimpleantur tempora nationum, adlegendarum scilicet a deo et congregandarum cum reliquiis Israhelis, inde iam in orbem et in saeculum praedicat secundum Iohelem et Danihelem et uniuersum concilium prophetarum futura signa in sole et luna et in stellis, conclusionem nationum, cum stupore sonitus maris et motus refrigescentium hominum prae metu et expectatione eorum, quae immineant orbi terrae. uirtutes enim, inquit, caelorum commouebuntur, et tunc uidebunt filium hominis uenientem in nubibus cum plurimo potentatu et gloria. ubi autem coeperint ista fieri, emergetis et eleuabitis capita uestra, quod redemptio uestra adpropinquauerit. et tamen adpropinquare eam dixit, non adesse iam, et cum coeperint ista fieri, non cum facta fuerint, quia cum facta fuerint, tunc aderit redemptio nostra, quae eo usque adpropinquare dicitur, erigens interim et excitans animos ad proximum iam spei fructum, cuius etiam parabola subtexitur tenerescentium arborum in caulem, floris et dehinc frugis antecursorem. ita et uos, cum uideritis omnia ista fieri, scitote in proximo esse regnum dei. uigilate ergo omni in tempore, ut digni habeamini effugere omnia ista et stetis ante filium hominis, utique per resurrectionem, omnibus ante transactis. ita etsi in agnitione sacramenti fruticat, sed in domini repraesentatione florescit atque frugescit. quis ergo dominum tam intempestiue, tam acerbe excitauit iam a dextera dei ad confringendam terram secundum Esaiam, quae. puto, adhuc integra est? quis inimicos Christi iam subiecit pedibus eius secundum Dauid, quasi uelocior patre, omni adhuc popularium coetu reclamante Christianos ad leonem? quis caelo descendentem Iesum talem conspexit qualem ascendentem apostoli uiderant secundum angelorum constitutum? nulla ad hodiernum tribus ad tribum pectora ceciderunt, agnoscentes quem pupugerunt, nemo adhuc excepit Heliam, nemo adhuc fugit antichristum, nemo adhuc Babylonis exitum fleuit: est iam, qui resurrexerit, nisi (quod) haereticus. exiit plane iam de corporis sepulcro etiamnunc febribus et ulceribus obnoxius, et conculcauit iam inimicos etiamnunc luctari habens cum mundi potentibus, et utique iam regnat etiamnunc Caesari quae sunt Caesaris debens.

### English translation (Claude)

After this we must look also at those Scriptures which do not allow the resurrection, as these “soul-men” (not to say “spiritual men”) would have it, either to be presumed already here in the recognition of the truth or to be claimed immediately upon departure from life. For since the times of the whole hope have been fixed by the sacred pen (at the coming of Christ, I think), and it may not be settled before then, our prayers sigh for the setting of this age, for the passing away of the world too, for the great day of the Lord, the day of wrath and retribution, the last and hidden day, known to none but the Father, and yet foreshown by signs and portents, shakings of the elements and conflicts of the nations. I would unroll the prophecies if the Lord himself had been silent (except that the prophecies too were the Lord's voice); but it is more that he seals them with his own mouth. Asked by the disciples when the things would come about that he had just then burst out with concerning the end of the temple, he sets out the order of the times: first the Jewish times up to the destruction of Jerusalem, then the common ones up to the close of the age. For after he declared, “And then Jerusalem will be trodden down by the nations, until the times of the nations are fulfilled” (the nations, that is, to be chosen by God and gathered with the remnant of Israel), from there he goes on to proclaim for the world and the age, in accord with Joel and Daniel and the whole council of the prophets, signs to come in the sun and moon and stars, distress of nations, with bewilderment at the roar of the sea, and men fainting for fear and expectation of what threatens the earth. “For the powers of the heavens,” he says, “will be shaken, and then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. But when these things begin to happen, you will come up and lift up your heads, because your redemption has drawn near.” Yet he said that it draws near, not that it is already present; and “when these things begin to happen,” not “when they have happened,” because when they have happened, then our redemption will be present, which until then is said to draw near, lifting and rousing our minds meanwhile to the fruit of hope now close at hand; and to this is joined the parable of the trees growing tender into shoots, the forerunner of the flower and then of the fruit. “So you too, when you see all these things happen, know that the kingdom of God is near. Watch, then, at all times, that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things and to stand before the Son of Man,” surely through the resurrection, when all these things have first taken place. So although it sprouts in the recognition of the mystery, it flowers and bears fruit at the Lord's appearing. Who, then, has roused the Lord so untimely, so prematurely, already from the right hand of God to shatter the earth, as Isaiah says, which, I think, is still whole? Who has already put Christ's enemies under his feet, as David says, as though quicker than the Father, while the whole throng of the populace still shouts, “Christians to the lion!”? Who has seen Jesus descending from heaven such as the apostles saw him ascending, according to the angels' declaration? To this day no tribe after tribe has beaten its breast, recognizing him whom they pierced; no one has yet welcomed Elijah; no one has yet fled from the antichrist; no one has yet wept over the fall of Babylon: and is there already someone who has risen, unless it be a heretic? He, no doubt, has already come out of the tomb of the body, though still liable to fevers and ulcers; he has already trampled his enemies, though he still has to wrestle with the powers of the world; and of course he already reigns, though he still owes to Caesar the things that are Caesar's.

### Scripture references

- Mark 13:32: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 21:24: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 21:25: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 21:26: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 21:27: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 21:28: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 21:29: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 21:31: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 21:36: quotation, high confidence
- Joel 2:31: allusion, medium confidence
- Isa 2:19: allusion, medium confidence
- Ps 110:1 (109:1 Vulg.; 109:1 LXX): allusion, high confidence
- Acts 1:11: allusion, high confidence
- Zech 12:10: allusion, high confidence
- Mal 4:5: allusion, medium confidence
- Rev 18:9: allusion, medium confidence
- Eph 6:12: allusion, medium confidence
- Matt 22:21: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The quotations are Luke 21:24–31, 36; allusions to Mark 13:32 (the hidden day), Joel 2:30–31, Isa 2:19, Ps 110:1 (109:1 Vulg.), Acts 1:11, Zech 12:10–12 (cf. Rev 1:7), Mal 4:5, Rev 18, Eph 6:12, and Matt 22:21. “Soul-men” (animales) turns the Valentinian term “psychics” back on the heretics who call themselves “spiritual.” The digital text's “legum talem” is corrected to “Iesum talem”, and “uestraquod” is separated.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 22 (CSEL 47:54–56; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/14/#p-22).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 23

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/14/#p-23
- Source: CSEL 47:56–58
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Paul speaks of a spiritual rising with Christ in baptism, but he and John and Peter place the real resurrection in the future, at Christ's appearing.

### Latin text

Docet quidem apostolus Colosensibus scribens mortuos fuisse nos aliquando, alienatos et inimicos sensus domini, cum in operibus pessimis agebamus, dehinc consepultos Christo in baptismate et conresuscitatos in eo per fidem efficaciae dei, qui illum suscitarit a mortuis: et uos cum mortui essetis delictis et praeputiatione carnis uestrae, uiuificauit cum eo, donatis uobis omnibus delictis, et rursus: si cum Christo mortui estis ab elementis mundi, quomodo quasi quidam uiuentes in mundo sententiam fertis? sed cum ita nos mortuos faciat spiritaliter, ut tamen et corporaliter quandoque morituros agnoscat, utique et resuscitatos proinde spiritaliter deputans aeque non negat etiam corporaliter resurrecturos. denique: si resurrexistis, inquit, cum Christo, ea quae sursum sunt quaerite, ubi est Christus in dextera dei residens; ea quae sursum sunt sapite, non quae deorsum. ita animo ostendit resurgere, quo solo adhuc possumus caelestia adtingere. quae non quaereremus nec saperemus. si possideremus. subicit etiam: mortui enim estis, — scilicet delictis, non uobis — et uita uestra abscondita est cum Christo in deo. nondum ergo adprehensa est quae abscondita est. sic et Iohannes: et nondum, ait, manifestatum est, quid futuri sumus. scimus quia, si manifestauerit, similes eius erimus. tanto abest, ut simus iam quod nescimus, utique scituri, si iam essemus. adeo contemplatio est spei in hoc spatio per fidem, non repraesentatio, nec possessio sed expectatio. de qua spe et expectatione Paulus ad Galatas: nos enim spiritu ex fide spem iustitiae expectamus. non ait tenemus; iustitiae autem dei dicit ex iudicio, quo iudicabitur de mercede. ad quam pendens et ipse, cum Philipensibus scribit: si qua, inquit, concurram in resuscitationem, quae a mortuis, non quia iam accepi aut consummatus sum. et utique crediderat et omnia sacramenta cognouerat, uas electionis, doctor nationum, et tamen adicit: persequor autem, si adprehendam, in quo sum adprehensus a Christo. et amplius: ego me, fratres, non puto adprehendisse: unum plane, oblitus posteriorum in priora me extendens secundum scopum persequor ad palmam incriminationis, per quam concurrerem; utique in resuscitationem a mortuis, suo tamen tempore, sicut ad Galatas: bene autem facientes ne taedeat, tempore enim suo metemus, sicut et ad Timotheum de Onesiphoro: det illi dominus inuenire misericordiam in illo die. in quem diem ac tempus et ipsi praecipit custodire mandatum inmaculatum inreprehensibile, in apparentiam domini Iesu Christi. quam suis temporibus ostendet beatus et solus potentator et rex regnantium, de deo dicens. de quibus temporibus et Petrus in Actis: paeniteat itaque uos et respicite ad abolenda delicta uestra, uti tempora nobis superueniant refrigerii ex persona dei, et mittat praedesignatum nobis Christum, quem oportet accipere caelos ad usque tempora exhib.itionis omnium, quae locutus est deus ore sanctorum prophetarum.

### English translation (Claude)

The apostle does indeed teach, writing to the Colossians, that we were once dead, alienated and hostile in mind toward the Lord, when we were engaged in the worst works; then buried with Christ in baptism and raised together in him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead: “And you, when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he made alive together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses”; and again: “If you have died with Christ from the elements of the world, why do you pass judgment as though living in the world?” But while he makes us dead spiritually in this way, so as still to acknowledge that we shall one day die bodily too, surely in reckoning us raised in the same way spiritually he equally does not deny that we shall rise bodily too. In short: “If you have risen with Christ,” he says, “seek the things that are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God; set your mind on the things above, not on those below.” So he shows that we rise in mind, by which alone we can as yet reach heavenly things. We would not seek them or set our minds on them if we possessed them. He adds too: “For you have died” (to sins, that is, not to yourselves) “and your life is hidden with Christ in God.” What is hidden, then, has not yet been grasped. So too John: “And it has not yet been made manifest,” he says, “what we shall be. We know that when he is made manifest, we shall be like him.” So far are we from already being what we do not know; we would surely know it if we already were. So in this interval it is a contemplation of hope through faith, not a presentation of it; not possession, but expectation. Of this hope and expectation Paul says to the Galatians: “For we through the Spirit, by faith, await the hope of righteousness.” He does not say “we hold”; and he speaks of the righteousness of God that comes from the judgment by which the reward will be judged. Hanging on this himself, he writes to the Philippians: “if by any means I may attain to the resurrection that is from the dead; not that I have already received it or am perfected.” And certainly he had believed and come to know all the mysteries, the chosen vessel, the teacher of the nations; and yet he adds: “But I press on, if I may grasp that for which I was grasped by Christ.” And further: “I do not think, brothers, that I have grasped it; but one thing: forgetting what lies behind and stretching out to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal, for the prize of the calling, by which I may attain”: to the resurrection from the dead, surely, yet in its own time, as he says to the Galatians: “And let us not grow weary in doing good, for in its own time we shall reap”; as also to Timothy about Onesiphorus: “May the Lord grant him to find mercy on that day.” For that day and time he also charges Timothy himself to keep the commandment spotless and irreproachable until the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ, “which in his own times the blessed and only Sovereign and King of kings will show,” speaking of God. Of these times Peter too says in the Acts: “Repent, then, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come upon us from the presence of God, and he may send the Christ appointed beforehand for us, whom heaven must receive until the times of the restoration of all things, of which God spoke by the mouth of the holy prophets.”

### Scripture references

- Col 1:21: allusion, high confidence
- Col 2:12: allusion, high confidence
- Col 2:13: quotation, high confidence
- Col 2:20: quotation, high confidence
- Col 3:1: quotation, high confidence
- Col 3:2: quotation, high confidence
- Col 3:3: quotation, high confidence
- 1 John 3:2: quotation, high confidence
- Gal 5:5: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 3:11: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 3:12: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 3:13: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 3:14: quotation, high confidence
- Acts 9:15: allusion, high confidence
- Gal 6:9: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Tim 1:18: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Tim 6:14: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Tim 6:15: quotation, high confidence
- Acts 3:19: quotation, high confidence
- Acts 3:20: quotation, high confidence
- Acts 3:21: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Col 1:21; 2:12–13, 20; 3:1–3; 1 John 3:2; Gal 5:5; Phil 3:11–14; Gal 6:9; 2 Tim 1:18; 1 Tim 6:14–15; Acts 3:19–21; “chosen vessel” is Acts 9:15. In Phil 3:14 the digital text reads “ad palmam incriminationis”, which makes no sense and is probably corrupt for a word rendering “the upward calling”; the translation follows the sense of the verse. The words of Col 3:1 are spaced out letter by letter in the digital text and are restored.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 23 (CSEL 47:56–58; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/14/#p-23).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 24

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/24/#p-24
- Source: CSEL 47:58–61
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Paul's letters to the Thessalonians place the resurrection at the Lord's coming, after the removal of the Roman state and the revealing of the antichrist.

### Latin text

Quae haec tempora, cum Thesalonicensibus disce. legimus enim: qualiter conuersi sitis ab idolis ad seruiendum uiuo et uero deo et ad expectandum a caelis filium eius, quem suscitauit ex mortuis, Iesum. et rursus: quae enim spes nostra uel gaudium uel exultationis corona, quam ut et uos coram domino nostro Iesu Christo in aduentu ipsius? item: coram deo et patre nostro in aduentu domini nostri Iesu Christi cum uniuersis sanctis eius. de quorum dormitione minus maerenda docens simul et tempora resurrectionis exponit: si enim credimus, quod Iesus mortuus sit et resurrexerit, sic et deus eos, qui dormierunt per Iesum, adducet cum ipso. hoc enim dicimus uobis in sermone domini, quod nos, qui uiuimus, qui remanemus in aduentum domini nostri, non praeueniemus eos, qui dormierunt. quoniam ipse dominus in iussu et in uoce archangeli et tuba dei descendet de caelo; et mortui in Christo primi resurgent, deinde nos, qui uiuimus, qui. sumul cum illis tollemur in nubibus obuiam Christo in aerem et ita semper cum domino erimus. quae uox archangeli, quae tuba dei audita iam, nisi forte in cubiculis haereticorum? nam etsi tuba dei euangelicus sermo dici potest, qui illos iam uocarit, sed aut mortui erunt iam corporaliter, ut resurrexerint, et quomodo uiuunt? aut in nubes erepti, et quomodo hic sunt? miserrimi reuera, ut apostolus pronuntiauit, qui in ista tantum uita sperantes habebuntur, excludendo, dum praeripiunt, quod post illam repromittitur, frustrati circa ueritatem non minus quam Phygelus et Hermogenes. et ideo maiestas spiritus sancti perspicax eiusmodi sensuum et in ipsa ad Thesalonicenses epistola suggerit: de temporibus autem et temporum spatiis, fratres, non est necessitas scribendi uobis. ipsi enim certissime scitis, quod dies domini quasi fur nocte ita adueniet. cum dicent <pax) et tuta sunt omnia, tunc illis repentinus insistet interitus. et in secunda pleniore sollicitudine ad eosdem: obsecro uos, fratres, per aduentum domini nostri et congregationem nostram ad illum, ne cito commoueamini animo neque turbemini, neque per spiritum neque per sermonem, scilicet pseudoprophetarum, neque per epistolam, scilicet pseudoapostolorum, acsi per nostram, quasi insistat dies domini. ne quis uos seducat ullo modo, quoniam nisi ueniat abscessio primo, huius utique regni, et reueletur delinquentiae homo, id est antichristus, filius perditionis, qui aduersatur et superextollitur omne, quod deus dicitur uel religio, uti sedeat in templo dei, adfirmans deum se. nonne meministis. quod cum apud uos essem, haec dicebam uobis? et nunc quid teneat scitis, ad reuelandum eum in suo tempore. iam enim arcanum iniquitatis agitatur; tantum qui nunc tenet, donec de medio fiat. quis. nisi Romanus status, cuius abscessio in decem reges dispersa antichristi superducet? et tunc reuelabitur iniquus, quem dominus Iesus interficiet spiritu oris sui et euacuabit apparentia aduentus sui, cuius est aduentus secundum operationem satanae in omni uirtute et signis atque portentis mendacii et in omni seductione iniustitiae eis, qui pereunt.

### English translation (Claude)

What these times are, learn with the Thessalonians. For we read: “how you turned from idols to serve the living and true God and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus.” And again: “For what is our hope or joy or crown of exultation, if not you also, before our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?” Likewise: “before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.” Teaching them that those who had fallen asleep should be mourned less, he at the same time sets out the times of the resurrection: “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, so too God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep through Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of our Lord, shall not go before those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a command, and with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet Christ in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.” What voice of an archangel, what trumpet of God has yet been heard, unless perhaps in the bedrooms of the heretics? For even if the word of the gospel, which has already called them, can be called the trumpet of God, yet either they will already be dead bodily, so as to have risen (and how are they alive?), or snatched up into the clouds (and how are they here?). Most miserable indeed, as the apostle declared, will they be reckoned who hope in this life only, shutting themselves out, by snatching it beforehand, from what is promised after it, gone astray about the truth no less than Phygelus and Hermogenes. And therefore the majesty of the Holy Spirit, seeing through thoughts of this kind, suggests in that very letter to the Thessalonians: “But concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, there is no need to write to you. For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. When they say ‘Peace’ and ‘All is safe,’ then sudden destruction will come upon them.” And in the second letter, with fuller concern, to the same: “I beseech you, brothers, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering to him, not to be quickly shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word” (that is, of false prophets) “or by letter” (that is, of false apostles) “as if from us, as though the day of the Lord were at hand. Let no one deceive you in any way; for unless the departure comes first” (of this empire, surely) “and the man of sin is revealed” (that is, the antichrist), “the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above everything that is called god or worship, so that he sits in the temple of God, declaring himself God. Do you not remember that when I was with you I told you these things? And now you know what restrains, so that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of iniquity is already at work; only he who now restrains, until he is taken out of the way.” Who is this but the Roman state, whose departure, divided among ten kings, will bring on the antichrist? “And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearing of his coming, whose coming is according to the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with every deceit of unrighteousness for those who are perishing.”

### Scripture references

- 1 Thess 1:9: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Thess 1:10: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Thess 2:19: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Thess 3:13: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Thess 4:13: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Thess 4:14: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Thess 4:15: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Thess 4:16: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Thess 4:17: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:19: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Tim 1:15: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Thess 5:1: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Thess 5:2: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Thess 5:3: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Thess 2:1: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Thess 2:2: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Thess 2:3: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Thess 2:4: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Thess 2:5: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Thess 2:6: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Thess 2:7: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Thess 2:8: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Thess 2:9: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Thess 2:10: quotation, high confidence
- Dan 7:24: allusion, medium confidence
- Rev 17:12: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: 1 Thess 1:9–10; 2:19; 3:13; 4:13–17; 5:1–3; 2 Thess 2:1–10; allusions to 1 Cor 15:19 and 2 Tim 1:15 (Phygelus and Hermogenes). Tertullian identifies “what restrains” with the Roman empire, whose breakup into ten kings (cf. Dan 7:24; Rev 17:12) precedes the antichrist; he reads Paul's “abscessio” (Greek ἀποστασία) as the departure of the empire.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 24 (CSEL 47:58–61; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/24/#p-24).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 25

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/24/#p-25
- Source: CSEL 47:61–62
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Revelation sets the resurrection at the end of the age; a spiritual rising at conversion may be granted, but only because the bodily one is promised at the end.

### Latin text

Etiam in apocalypsi ordo temporum sternitur, quem martyrum quoque animae sub altari ultionem et iudicium flagitantes sustinere didicerunt, ut prius et orbis de pateris angelorum plagas suas ebibat, et prostituta illa ciuitas a decem regibus dignos exitus referat. et bestia antichristus cum suo pseudopropheta certamen ecclesiae inferat, atque ita diabolo in abyssum interim relegato primae resurrectionis praerogatiua de soliis ordinetur, dehinc et igni dato uniuersalis resurrectionis censura de libris iudicetur. cum igitur et status temporum ultimorum scripturae notent et totam Christianae spei frugem in exodio saeculi collocent, apparet aut tunc adimpleri totum quodcumque nobis a deo repromittitur — et uacat. quod hic iam ab haereticis uindicatur — aut, si et agnitio sacramenti resurrectio, salua utique illa creditur quae in ultimo praedicatur; et sequitur, ut eo ipso, quo haec spiritalis uindicatur, illa corporalis praeiudicetur; quia, si nulla tunc adnuntiaretur, merito sola haec et tantummodo spiritalis uindicaretur, cum uero et in ultimum tempus edicitur, corporalis agnoscitur, quia non et tunc [spiritalis] adnuntiaretur resurrectio eiusdem condicionis, id est spiritalis, cum aut nunc eam deceret expungi sine ulla differentia temporum aut tunc sub omni clausula temporum. ita nobis magis competit etiam spiritalem defendere resurrectionem ab ingressu fidei, qui plenitudinem eius agnoscimus in exitu saeculi.

### English translation (Claude)

In the Apocalypse too the order of the times is laid out, which the souls of the martyrs under the altar, crying out for vengeance and judgment, learned to wait for: that first the world must drink its plagues from the bowls of the angels, and that harlot city receive its fitting end from the ten kings, and the beast antichrist with his false prophet make war on the church; and so, the devil meanwhile being banished to the abyss, the privilege of the first resurrection be ordered from the thrones; then, the devil given to the fire, the sentence of the universal resurrection be judged from the books. Since, then, the Scriptures both mark out the state of the last times and place the whole harvest of the Christian hope at the close of the age, it is clear either that the whole of whatever God promises us is fulfilled then, and what the heretics claim already here is empty; or, if the recognition of the mystery is also a resurrection, that is surely believed without prejudice to the one proclaimed at the end. And it follows that by the very fact that this spiritual one is claimed, the bodily one is already decided; because if none were announced for then, this one alone, and that only spiritual, would rightly be claimed; but since one is also proclaimed for the last time, it is recognized as bodily, since a resurrection of the same condition, that is, spiritual, would not also be announced for then, when it ought to be completed either now, without any distinction of times, or then, at the close of all times. So it suits us rather to defend a spiritual resurrection as well, from the entrance of faith, since we acknowledge its fullness at the end of the age.

### Scripture references

- Rev 6:9: allusion, high confidence
- Rev 6:10: allusion, high confidence
- Rev 16:1: allusion, high confidence
- Rev 17:16: allusion, high confidence
- Rev 19:20: allusion, high confidence
- Rev 20:3: allusion, high confidence
- Rev 20:4: allusion, high confidence
- Rev 20:5: allusion, high confidence
- Rev 20:10: allusion, high confidence
- Rev 20:12: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions to Rev 6:9–10; 16:1; 17:16; 19:19–20; 20:3–6, 10–12. “Recognition of the mystery” (agnitio sacramenti) is the coming to faith. “[spiritalis]”, bracketed in the edition as a deletion, is left out.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 25 (CSEL 47:61–62; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/24/#p-25).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 26

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/24/#p-26
- Source: CSEL 47:62–64
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Prophetic promises and threats addressed to “the earth” may be read of the flesh, taken from the earth; so figurative speech itself supports the resurrection of the body.

### Latin text

Unum adhuc respondebo ad propositionem priorem allegoricarum scripturarum, licere et nobis corporalem resurrectionem de patrocinio figurati proinde eloquii prophetici uindicare. ecce enim diuina (in) primordio sententia terram hominem pronuntiando: terra es et in terram ibis, secundum substantiam scilicet carnis, quae de terra erat sumpta et quae prior homo fuerat appellata, sicut ostendimus, dat mihi disciplinam in carnem quoque interpretandi. si quid irae uel gratiae in terram deus statuit, quia nec proprie terra iudicio eius obnoxia est, quae nihil boni seu mali admisit. maledicta quidem, quod hauserit sanguinem. sed et hoc ipsum in figuram carnis homicidae. iam [et] si iuuari seu laedi habet terra quoque propter hominem, uti ille iuuetur siue laedatur per consistorii sui exitus: quo magis ipse pensabit quae propter illum etiam terra patietur? itaque et cum comminatur terrae deus. carni potius comminari eum dicam, et cum quid terrae pollicetur, carni potius polliceri eum intellegam. ut apud Dauid: dominus regnauit, exultabit terra, id est caro sanctorum, ad quam pertinet regni diuini fructus: [dehinc subiungit] uidit et concussa est terra; montes sicut cera liquefacti sunt a facie domini, caro scilicet profanorum. [et] uidebunt enim in eum. quem confixerunt. alioquin, si simpliciter de terrae elemento utrumque existimabitur pronuntiatum. quomodo congruet et concuti et liquefieri eam a facie domini. quo supra regnante exultauit? sic et apud Esaiam: bona terrae edetis bona carnis intellegentur, quae illam manent in regno dei reformatam et angelificatam et consecuturam quae nec oculus uidit nec auris audiuit nec in cor hominis ascenderunt. alioquin satis uanum, ut ad obsequium deus fructibus agri et cibariis uitae huius inuitet, quae etiam inreligiosis et blasphemis semel homini addicta conditione communicat, pluens super bonos et malos et solem suum mittens super iustos et iniustos. felix nimirum fides, si ea consecutura est, quibus hostes dei et Christi non modo utuntur uerum etiam abutuntur, ipsam conditionem colentes aduersus conditorem. bulbos et tubera in terrae bonis deputabis, domino pronuntiante ne in pane quidem uicturum hominem? sic Iudaei terrena solummodo sperando caelestia amittunt, ignorantes et panem de caelesti repromissum et oleum diuinae unctionis et aquam spiritus et uinum animae uigorantis ei uite Christi. sicut et ipsam terram sanctam Iudaicum proprie solum reputant, carnem potius domini interpretandam, quae exinde et in omnibus Christum indutis sancta sit terra, uere sancta per incolatum spiritus sancti, uere lacte et melle manans per suauitatem spei ipsius, uere Iudaea per dei familiaritatem, - non enim qui in manifesto Iudaeus, sed qui in occulto — ut et templum dei eadem sit et Hierusalem, audiens ab Esaia: exurge, exurge Hierusalem. indue fortitudinem brachii tui, exurge, sicut in primordii die, scilicet in illa integritate, qua fuerat ante delictum transgressionis. qui enim in eam Hierusalem uoces eiusmodi competent exhortationis et aduocationis, quae occidit prophetas et lapidauit missos ad se et ipsum postremo dominum suum confecit? sed nec ulli omnino terrae salus repromittitur, quam oportet cum totius mundi habitu praeterire. etiam si quis audebit terram sanctam paradisum potius argumentari, quam et patrum dici capiat, Adae scilicet et Euae, proinde et in paradisum restitutio carni uidebitur repromissa, quae eum incolare et custodire sortita est, ut talis illuc homo reuocetur, qualis inde depulsus est.

### English translation (Claude)

One thing more I will answer to their earlier proposition about allegorical Scriptures: that we too may claim the bodily resurrection with the support of the figurative style of prophetic speech. For see: the divine sentence at the beginning, pronouncing man earth (“Earth you are, and into earth you shall go”), according to the substance of the flesh, of course, which had been taken from the earth and had first been called man, as we have shown, gives me a rule for interpreting of the flesh too whatever wrath or favour God has decreed upon the earth; since the earth, properly speaking, is not liable to his judgment, having committed nothing good or evil. It was indeed cursed because it drank blood; but even this was a figure of the murderous flesh. For if the earth too is to be helped or harmed for man's sake, so that he may be helped or harmed through the fortunes of his dwelling-place, how much more will he himself pay for what even the earth will suffer for his sake? So when God threatens the earth, I will say that he rather threatens the flesh, and when he promises anything to the earth, I will understand that he rather promises it to the flesh. As in David: “The Lord has reigned, let the earth rejoice,” that is, the flesh of the saints, to which the fruit of the divine kingdom belongs. “It saw and the earth was shaken; the mountains melted like wax before the face of the Lord”: the flesh of the profane, that is; for “they will look on him whom they pierced.” Otherwise, if both are thought to be said simply of the element earth, how will it fit that it is shaken and melts before the face of the Lord, at whose reign it rejoiced above? So too in Isaiah: “You shall eat the good things of the earth”: the good things of the flesh will be meant, which await it in the kingdom of God, re-formed and made like the angels, and about to obtain what eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has entered the heart of man. Otherwise it would be quite empty for God to invite to obedience with the fruits of the field and the food of this life, which he shares even with the irreligious and blasphemers, the condition having been assigned once for all to man, raining on the good and the evil and sending his sun on the just and the unjust. A happy faith indeed, if it is to obtain what the enemies of God and Christ not only use but abuse, worshipping the creation itself against the Creator! Will you count onions and truffles among the good things of the earth, when the Lord declares that man shall not live even by bread? So the Jews, hoping only for earthly things, lose the heavenly, not knowing of the bread promised from heaven, the oil of divine anointing, the water of the Spirit, and the wine that invigorates the soul from the vine that is Christ. So too they reckon the holy land itself to be properly the soil of Judaea, when it should rather be interpreted as the Lord's flesh, which thereafter is holy land also in all who have put on Christ: truly holy through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, truly flowing with milk and honey through the sweetness of that very hope, truly Judaea through intimacy with God (for he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, but he who is one inwardly), so that the same flesh is both the temple of God and Jerusalem, hearing from Isaiah: “Awake, awake, Jerusalem, put on the strength of your arm; awake as on the day of the beginning,” that is, in the integrity it had before the sin of transgression. For how will words of such exhortation and summons fit that Jerusalem which killed the prophets and stoned those sent to it and at last did away with its own Lord? But salvation is not promised to any land at all, since land must pass away with the form of the whole world. Even if anyone dares to argue that the holy land is rather paradise, which may be called the land of the fathers, namely of Adam and Eve, then too a restoration to paradise will be seen to be promised to the flesh, which was allotted to dwell in it and keep it, so that man may be called back there such as he was when driven out.

### Scripture references

- Gen 3:19: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 4:11: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 97:1 (96:1 LXX; 96:1 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 97:4 (96:4 LXX; 96:4 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 97:5 (96:5 LXX; 96:5 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Zech 12:10: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 1:19: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 2:9: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 5:45: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 1:25: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 4:4: allusion, high confidence
- John 6:32: allusion, medium confidence
- John 15:1: allusion, medium confidence
- Exod 3:8: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 2:28: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 2:29: allusion, high confidence
- Isa 51:9: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 23:37: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 7:31: allusion, medium confidence
- Gen 2:15: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations and allusions: Gen 3:19; Gen 4:11; Ps 97:1, 4–5 (96:1, 4–5 LXX/Vulg.); Zech 12:10 (cf. John 19:37); Isa 1:19; 1 Cor 2:9; Matt 5:45; Rom 1:25; Matt 4:4 (Deut 8:3); John 6:32; Exod 3:8; Rom 2:28–29; Isa 51:9; Matt 23:37; 1 Cor 7:31; Gen 2:15. The remarks on the Jews' earthly hope are Tertullian's own polemic, translated as written. Three words or phrases bracketed in the edition as deletions are left out: “[et]” (twice) and “[dehinc subiungit]”.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 26 (CSEL 47:62–64; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/24/#p-26).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 27

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/24/#p-27
- Source: CSEL 47:64–65
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Scriptural garments can signify the flesh, and Isaiah's “storerooms” in which God's people hide until his wrath passes are the tombs from which bodies will come forth.

### Latin text

Habemus etiam uestimentorum in scripturis mentionem ad spem carnis allegorizare, quia et apocalypsis Iohannis: hi sunt, ait, qui uestimenta sua non coinquinauerunt cum mulieribus, uirgines es scilicet significans et qui semetipsos castrauerunt propter regna caelorum. itaque in albis erunt uestibus, id est in claritate innubae carnis. et in euangelio indumentum nuptiale sanctitas carnis agnosci potest. itaque Esaias docens, quale ieiunium elegerit dominus, cum subicit de mercede bonitatis: tunc, inquit, lumen tuum temporaneum erumpet et uestimenta tua citius orientur, non subsericam utique nec pallium sed carnem uolens accipi, ortum carnis resurrecturae de mortis occasu praedicauit. adeo nobis quoque suppetit allegorice defensio corporalis resurrectionis. nam et cum legimus: populus meus, introite in cellas promas quantulum, donec ira mea praetereat, sepulcra erunt cellae promae, in quibus paulisper requiescere habebunt qui in finibus saeculi sub ultima ira per antichristi uim excesserint. aut cur cellarum promarum potius uocabulo usus est, et non alicuius loci receptorii, nisi quia in cellis promis caro salita et usui reposita seruatur, depromenda illinc suo tempore? proinde enim et corpora medicata condimentis sepulturae mausoleis et monumentis sequestrantur, processura inde cum iusserit dominus. quod cum ita intellegi congruat, — ecquae enim ab ira dei cellariorum nos refugia seruabunt? — hoc ipso quod ait: donec ira praetereat, quae extinguet antichristum, post iram ostendit processuram carnem de sepulcro, in quo ante iram fuerit inlata. nam et de cellariis non aliud effertur, quam quod infertur. et post antichristi eradicationem agitabitur resurrectio.

### English translation (Claude)

We can also allegorize the mention of garments in the Scriptures in favour of the hope of the flesh, since the Apocalypse of John too says: “These are they who have not defiled their garments with women,” meaning, of course, virgins and those who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. So they will be in white robes, that is, in the brightness of unmarried flesh. And in the gospel the wedding garment can be recognized as the holiness of the flesh. So Isaiah, teaching what fast the Lord has chosen, when he adds concerning the reward of goodness, “Then,” he says, “your early light will break forth, and your garments will spring up quickly,” meaning, surely, not a silk tunic or a cloak but the flesh, proclaimed the rising of the flesh that is to rise again from the setting of death. So we too have an allegorical defence of the bodily resurrection at hand. For when we read, “My people, go into your storerooms for a little while, until my wrath passes by,” the storerooms will be the tombs, in which those who at the end of the age have departed under the last wrath, through the violence of the antichrist, will rest for a while. Or why did he use the word “storerooms” rather than that of some other place of shelter, unless because in storerooms flesh that has been salted and laid up for use is kept, to be brought out from there in its time? For just so bodies too, treated with the spices of burial, are set apart in mausoleums and monuments, to come forth from there when the Lord commands. Since it is fitting to understand it so (for what refuges of storerooms will save us from the wrath of God?), by this very phrase, “until the wrath passes by,” the wrath that will destroy the antichrist, he shows that after the wrath the flesh will come forth from the tomb into which it had been brought before the wrath. For nothing is brought out of storerooms but what is brought in. And after the rooting out of the antichrist the resurrection will take place.

### Scripture references

- Rev 14:4: quotation, high confidence
- Rev 3:4: allusion, medium confidence
- Matt 19:12: allusion, high confidence
- Rev 7:9: allusion, medium confidence
- Matt 22:11: allusion, high confidence
- Isa 58:6: allusion, high confidence
- Isa 58:8: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 26:20: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations and allusions: Rev 14:4 (combined with the undefiled garments of Rev 3:4); Matt 19:12; Rev 7:9; Matt 22:11–12; Isa 58:6, 8; Isa 26:20. The rendering of Rev 14:4 (“garments” for the Greek “themselves”) is Tertullian's own. The allegory of garments for the flesh reflects Tertullian's high esteem for virginity.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 27 (CSEL 47:64–65; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/24/#p-27).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 28

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/24/#p-28
- Source: CSEL 47:65–66
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Moses' signs, God's promise to require the blood of the slain, and the word “I will kill and make alive” all point to the raising of the flesh.

### Latin text

Scimus autem sicut et uocibus ita et rebus prophetatum; tam dictis quam et factis praedicatur resurrectio. cum Moyses manum in sinum condit et emortuam profert et rursus insinuat et uiuidam explicat, nonne hoc de toto homine portendit? siquidem trina uirtus dei per illa trina signa denotabatur cum suo ordine, primo diabolum serpentem quamquam formidabilem subactura homini, dehinc carnem de sinu mortis retractura, atque ita omnem sanguinem executura iudicio. de quo apud eundem propheten: quoniam et uestrum, inquit deus, sanguinem exquiram de omnibus bestiis. et de manu hominis et de manu fratris exquiram eum. porro nihil exquiritur nisi quod reposcitur, nihil reposcitur nisi quod et reddetur, et utique reddetur quod ultionis nomine reposcetur et exquiretur. neque enim uindicari poterit quod omnino non fuerit. erit autem, dum restituitur, uti uindicetur. in carnem itaque dirigitur quicquid in sanguinem praedicatur, sine qua non erit sanguis. caro suscitabitur, ut sanguis uindicetur. sunt et quaedam ita pronuntiata, ut allegoriae quidem nubilo careant, nihilominus tamen ipsius simplicitatis suae sitiant interpretationem, quale est apud Esaiam: ego occidam et uiuificabo. certe postea quam occiderit uiuificabit. ergo per mortem occidens per resurrectionem uiuificabit. caro est autem, quae occiditur per mortem, caro itaque et uiuificabitur per resurrectionem. certe si occidere carni animam eripere est, uiuificare, contrarium eius, carni animam referre est, caro resurgat necesse est, cui anima per occisionem erepta referenda est per uiuificationem.

### English translation (Claude)

We know, moreover, that prophecy was made by things as well as by words; the resurrection is proclaimed by deeds as much as by sayings. When Moses hides his hand in his bosom and brings it out dead, and puts it back again and draws it out living, does this not foreshow something concerning the whole man? For the threefold power of God was indicated in order by those three signs: first, that it would subject the devil, the serpent, however fearsome, to man; next, that it would draw the flesh back from the bosom of death; and so, that it would exact all blood in judgment. Of this God says through the same prophet: “For I will require your blood too from all beasts, and from the hand of man and from the hand of a brother I will require it.” Now nothing is required except what is demanded back; nothing is demanded back except what will also be given back; and surely what will be demanded back and required in the name of vengeance will be given back. For what does not exist at all cannot be avenged. But it will exist when it is restored, so that it may be avenged. Whatever is proclaimed about blood, then, is directed at the flesh, without which there will be no blood. The flesh will be raised so that the blood may be avenged. There are also some things said in such a way that they lack the cloud of allegory and yet thirst for the interpretation of their very plainness, as in Isaiah: “I will kill and I will make alive.” Certainly, after he has killed he will make alive. So, killing by death, he will make alive by resurrection. But it is the flesh that is killed by death; so it is the flesh also that will be made alive by resurrection. Surely, if to kill is to snatch the soul from the flesh, to make alive, its opposite, is to give the soul back to the flesh; the flesh must rise, to which the soul, snatched away by killing, must be given back by making alive.

### Scripture references

- Exod 4:3: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 4:6: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 4:7: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 9:5: quotation, high confidence
- Deut 32:39: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions and quotations: Exod 4:2–7 (the rod turned serpent and the hand made leprous and restored); Gen 9:5; Deut 32:39, which Tertullian here assigns to Isaiah.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 28 (CSEL 47:65–66; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/24/#p-28).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 29

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/24/#p-29
- Source: CSEL 47:66–67
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Ezekiel's vision of the dry bones, clothed with sinews, flesh, and skin and brought to life, names the bodily substances explicitly.

### Latin text

Igitur si et allegoricae scripturae et argumenta rerum et simplices uoces resurrectionem carnis, quamquam sine nominatione ipsius substantiae, subradiant, quanto magis quae hanc spem in ipsas substantias corporales speciali mentione determinant non erunt deducendae in quaestionem? accipe Ezechielem: et facta est, inquit, super me manus domini et extulit me in spiritu dominus et posuit me in medio campi; is erat ossibus refertus. et circumduxit me super ea per circuitum et ecce multa super faciem campi et ecce arida satis. et ait ad me: fili hominis, si uiuent ossa ista? et dixi: Adonai domine, tu scis. et ait ad me: propheta in ossa haec et dices: ossa arida, audite sermonem domini: haec dicit dominus Adonai ossibus istis: ecce ego adfero in uos spiritum, et uiuetis, et dabo in uos neruos et reducam in uos carnes et circumdabo in uobis cutem et dabo in uobis spiritum, et uiuetis et cognoscetis, quod ego dominus. et prophetaui secundum praeceptum, et ecce uox, dum propheto, et ecce motus: et accedebant ossa ad ossa, et uidi et ecce super ossa nerui et caro ascendit et circumpositae sunt eis carnes et spiritus in eis non erat. et ait ad me: propheta ad spiritum, fili hominis, propheta et dices ad spiritum: haec dicit dominus Adonai: a quatuor uentis ueni, spiritus, et spira in istis interemptis, et uiuant. et prophetaui ad spiritum, sicut praecepit mihi, et introiit in ea spiritus et uixerunt et constiterunt super pedes suos ualentia magna satis. et ait ad me: fili hominis, ossa ista omnis domus Israhel est. ipsi dicunt: exaruerunt ossa nostra et periit spes nostra, auulsi sumus in eis. propterea propheta ad eos: ecce ego patefacio sepulcra uestra et eueham uos de sepulcris uestris, populus meus, et inducam uos in terram Israhel et cognoscetis, quod ego dominus aperuerim sepulcra uestra et eduxerim uos de sepulcris uestris, populus meus, et dabo uobis spiritum et uiuetis et requiescetis in terra uestra et cognoscetis, quod ego dominus locutus sim et fecerim, dicit dominus.

### English translation (Claude)

So if allegorical Scriptures, and the evidence of things, and simple sayings give glimmers of the resurrection of the flesh, though without naming that substance itself, how much less should those passages be brought into question which fix this hope on the bodily substances themselves by explicit mention? Hear Ezekiel: “And the hand of the Lord came upon me,” he says, “and the Lord brought me out in the spirit and set me in the middle of a plain; it was full of bones. And he led me round over them in a circle, and behold, there were many on the face of the plain, and behold, they were very dry. And he said to me, ‘Son of man, will these bones live?’ And I said, ‘Adonai, Lord, you know.’ And he said to me, ‘Prophesy over these bones and say: Dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus says the Lord Adonai to these bones: Behold, I bring spirit into you, and you shall live; and I will put sinews on you and bring flesh back upon you and cover you with skin and put spirit in you, and you shall live, and you shall know that I am the Lord.’ And I prophesied according to the command; and behold, a sound as I prophesied, and behold, a movement, and the bones came together, bone to bone. And I looked, and behold, sinews on the bones, and flesh came up, and flesh was laid around them, and there was no spirit in them. And he said to me, ‘Prophesy to the spirit, son of man, prophesy and say to the spirit: Thus says the Lord Adonai: Come from the four winds, O spirit, and breathe into these slain, that they may live.’ And I prophesied to the spirit as he commanded me, and the spirit entered them, and they lived and stood upon their feet, an exceedingly great host. And he said to me, ‘Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They say, “Our bones are dried up and our hope is lost; we are cut off in them.” Therefore prophesy to them: Behold, I open your tombs and will bring you up out of your tombs, my people, and I will bring you into the land of Israel, and you shall know that I the Lord have opened your tombs and brought you out of your tombs, my people; and I will give you spirit and you shall live, and you shall rest in your land, and you shall know that I the Lord have spoken and done it,’ says the Lord.”

### Scripture references

- Ezek 37:1: quotation, high confidence
- Ezek 37:2: quotation, high confidence
- Ezek 37:3: quotation, high confidence
- Ezek 37:4: quotation, high confidence
- Ezek 37:5: quotation, high confidence
- Ezek 37:6: quotation, high confidence
- Ezek 37:7: quotation, high confidence
- Ezek 37:8: quotation, high confidence
- Ezek 37:9: quotation, high confidence
- Ezek 37:10: quotation, high confidence
- Ezek 37:11: quotation, high confidence
- Ezek 37:12: quotation, high confidence
- Ezek 37:13: quotation, high confidence
- Ezek 37:14: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The quotation is Ezek 37:1–14, in an Old Latin form close to the Septuagint.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 29 (CSEL 47:66–67; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/24/#p-29).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 30

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/24/#p-30
- Source: CSEL 47:67–69
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Even if Ezekiel's vision figures Israel's restoration, a figure drawn from bones implies that bones will really rise, and God's testing of the prophet shows that the bodily resurrection is meant.

### Latin text

Hanc quoque praedicationem scio, qualiter concutiant in allegoriae argumentationem, quia dicendo ossa ista omnis domus est Israhel imaginem ea fecerit Israhelis et a propria condicione transtulerit; atque ita figuratam esse, non ueram resurrectionis praedicationem. statum enim Iudaeorum deformari quodammodo emortuum et exaridum et dispersum in campo orbis. itaque et imaginem resurrectionis in illum allegorizari, quia recolligi habeat et recompingi os ad os, id est tribus ad tribum et populus ad populum, et recorporari carnibus facultatum et neruis regni atque ita de sepulcris, id est de habitaculis captiuitatis tristissimis atque teterrimis, educi et refrigerii nomine respirari et uiuere exinde in terra sua Iudaea. et quid post haec? morientur sine dubio. et quid post mortem? nulla, opinor, resuscitatio, si non haec erit ipsa, quae Ezechieli reuelatur. sed enim et alias praedicatur resurrectio. ergo et haec erit, et temere M statum eam Iudaicarum rerum conuertunt. aut si alia est illa quam defendimus, nihil mea interest, dum sit et corporum resurrectio, sicut et rerum Iudaicarum. denique hoc ipso, quod recidiuatus Iudaici status de recorporatione et redanimatione ossuum figuratur, id quoque euenturum ossibus probatur. non enim posset de ossibus figura componi, si non id ipsum et ossibus euenturum esset. nam etsi figmentum ueritatis in imagine est, imago ipsa in ueritate est sui. necesse est esse prius sibi, quo alii configuretur. de uacuo similitudo non competit, de nullo parabola non conuenit. ita oportebit ossuum quoque credi reuiscerationem et respirationem, qualis dicitur, de qua possit exprimi Iudaicarum rerum reformatio, qualis adfingitur. sed magis religiosum est ueritatem de suae t ueritate simplicitatis defendi, quam sensus diuinae propositionis expostulat. si enim ad res Iudaicas spectaret haec uisio, statim reuelato situ ossuum subiecisset: ossa ista omnis domus Israhelis est, et cetera deinceps. at cum ostensis ossibus de propria spe eorum quid obloquitur. nondum nominato Israhele, et fidem temptat prophetae: fili hominis, si uiuent ossa haec? ut et ille responderet: domine, tu scis. non utique deus prophetae fidem de ea re temptasset, quae futura non esset, quam numquam Israhel audisset, quam credi non oporteret. sed quoniam praedicabatur quidem resurrectio mortuorum, Israhel uero pro sua incredulitate diffidens scandalizabatur et aspiciens habitum senescentis sepulturae desperabat resurrectionem uel non in eam potius animum dirigebat sed in circumstantias suas, idcirco deus et prophetam, qua et ipsum dubium, praestruxit ad constantiam praedicationis reuelato ordine resurrectionis et populo id credendum mandauit, quod prophetae reuelauit. ipsos dicens esse ossa quae erant resurrectura, qui non credebant resurrectura. denique in clausula: et cognoscetis, inquit, quod ego dominus locutus sim et fecerim, id utique facturus, quod fuerat locutus; ceterum non id facturus, quod locutus, si aliter facturus quam locutus.

### English translation (Claude)

I know how they shake this prophecy too into an argument for allegory: because by saying, “These bones are the whole house of Israel,” he made them an image of Israel and transferred them from their proper condition, and so, they say, it is a figurative, not a real, prophecy of resurrection. For the state of the Jews, they say, is portrayed as in some way dead and dried up and scattered over the plain of the world; and so the image of resurrection is allegorized of it, because it is to be gathered again and fitted together bone to bone, that is, tribe to tribe and people to people, and re-embodied with the flesh of resources and the sinews of kingship, and so brought out of the tombs, that is, out of the saddest and foulest dwellings of captivity, to breathe again under the name of refreshment and thereafter to live in its own land, Judaea. And what after this? They will die, no doubt. And what after death? No raising again, I suppose, if it is not this very one that is revealed to Ezekiel. But resurrection is proclaimed elsewhere too. So this one too will be it, and they rashly turn it to the state of Jewish affairs. Or if the one we defend is another, it makes no difference to me, so long as there is a resurrection of bodies as well as of Jewish affairs. Indeed, by the very fact that the renewal of the Jewish state is figured by the re-embodiment and re-animation of bones, it is proved that this will also happen to bones. For a figure could not be composed out of bones if this very thing were not also going to happen to bones. For even though the representation of the truth is in the image, the image itself is true in itself: it must first be something for itself, in order to be shaped to represent another. A likeness is not drawn from emptiness; a parable does not fit nothing. So we must believe also in the re-fleshing and re-breathing of bones, such as is described, from which the re-forming of Jewish affairs, as they imagine it, could be expressed. But it is more religious to defend the truth from the truth of its own plainness, which the sense of the divine declaration demands. For if this vision looked to Jewish affairs, as soon as the place of the bones had been revealed he would have added, “These bones are the whole house of Israel,” and the rest. But when, after the bones have been shown, he says something about their own hope before Israel is named, and tests the prophet's faith (“Son of man, will these bones live?”), so that he answered, “Lord, you know”: surely God would not have tested the prophet's faith about a thing that was not to be, which Israel had never heard of, which ought not to be believed. But since the resurrection of the dead was indeed being proclaimed, while Israel, distrustful through its unbelief, stumbled, and, looking at the appearance of burial growing old, despaired of the resurrection, or did not direct its mind to it but to its own circumstances, therefore God both prepared the prophet, since he too was in doubt, for steadfastness in preaching by revealing the order of the resurrection, and commanded the people to believe what he had revealed to the prophet, saying that they themselves were the bones that were to rise, who did not believe they would rise. Finally, in the conclusion: “And you shall know,” he says, “that I the Lord have spoken and done it,” intending, surely, to do what he had spoken; otherwise he would not be doing what he had spoken, if he were to do otherwise than he had spoken.

### Scripture references

- Ezek 37:3: quotation, high confidence
- Ezek 37:11: quotation, high confidence
- Ezek 37:14: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The quotations are Ezek 37:3, 11, 14. Stray letters in the digital text (“temere M statum”, “suae t ueritate”) are ignored.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 30 (CSEL 47:67–69; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/24/#p-30).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 31

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/24/#p-31
- Source: CSEL 47:69–70
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Israel doubted a bodily resurrection, not its political fortunes, and the prophets promise the rising of the dead to all nations, not to Israel alone.

### Latin text

Plane, si et populus allegorice mussitaret ossa sua arefacta et spem suam perditam, dispersionis exitum querulus- Ius, merito uideretur et deus figuratam desperationem figurata promissione consolatus. sed cum dispersionis quidem iniuria nondum populo accidisset, resurrectionis uero spes apud illum saepissime cecinisset, manifestus est de corporum interitu labefactans fiduciam resurrectionis. ita et deus eam restruebat fidem, quam populus destruebat. quamquam et si aliqua praesentium rerum tunc conflictatione haerebat Israhel, non idcirco in parabola accipienda esset reuelationis intentio sed in testationem resurrectionis, ut in illam spem erigeret illos, aeternae scilicet salutis et necessarioris restitutionis, et auerteret a respectu praesentium rerum. ad hoc enim et alii prophetae: exibitis — de sepulcris- uelut uituli de uinculis soluti et conculcabitis inimicos, et rursus: gaudebit cor uestrum, et ossa uestra uelut herba orientur, quia et herba de dissolutione et corruptela seminis reformatur. in summa: si proprie in Israhelis statum resurgentium ossuum imago contenditur, cur etiam non Israheli tantummodo uerum et omnibus gentibus eadem spes adnuntiatur et recorporandarum et redanimandarum reliquiarum et de sepulcris exsuscitandorum mortuorum? de omnibus enim dictum est: uiuent mortui, exurgent de sepulcris: ros enim, qui a te, medela ossibus eorum. item alibi: ueniet adorare omnis caro in conspectu meo, dicit dominus. quando? cum praeterire coeperit habitus mundi huius. supra enim: quemadmodum caelum nouum et terra noua, quae ego facio, in conspectu meo, dicit dominus, ita stabit semen uestrum. tunc ergo et quod subicit implebitur: et exibunt, utique de sepulcris, et uidebunt artus eorum, qui impie egerunt, quoniam uermis illorum non decidet et ignis illorum non extinguetur, et erit satis conspectui omni carni, scilicet quae resuscitata et egressa de sepulcris dominum pro hac gratia adorabit.

### English translation (Claude)

Certainly, if the people too had been muttering allegorically that their bones were dried up and their hope lost, complaining of the outcome of their dispersion, it might rightly seem that God had also comforted a figurative despair with a figurative promise. But since the injury of dispersion had not yet befallen the people, while the hope of resurrection had very often been sung among them, it is plain that they were undermining their confidence in the resurrection because of the destruction of bodies. So God was rebuilding the faith that the people were tearing down. And even if Israel was then caught in some struggle over present affairs, the purpose of the revelation should not on that account be taken as a parable, but as a testimony to the resurrection, to raise them to that hope, of eternal salvation, that is, and of a more necessary restoration, and to turn them away from regard for present affairs. For to this end other prophets too say: “You shall go out” (from the tombs) “like calves loosed from bonds, and you shall tread down your enemies”; and again: “Your heart shall rejoice, and your bones shall spring up like grass,” since grass too is re-formed out of the dissolution and decay of the seed. In sum: if the image of the rising bones is contended to apply properly to the state of Israel, why is the same hope announced not only to Israel but to all nations as well, of remains to be re-embodied and re-animated and of the dead to be raised from their tombs? For of all it is said: “The dead shall live, they shall rise from the tombs; for the dew that is from you is healing to their bones.” Likewise elsewhere: “All flesh shall come to worship in my sight, says the Lord.” When? When the form of this world begins to pass away. For above it says: “As the new heaven and the new earth which I make stand in my sight, says the Lord, so shall your seed stand.” Then, therefore, what he adds will also be fulfilled: “And they shall go out” (from the tombs, surely) “and they shall see the limbs of those who acted wickedly, for their worm shall not die and their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be a spectacle to all flesh”: that flesh, namely, which, raised and gone out of the tombs, will worship the Lord for this grace.

### Scripture references

- Mal 4:2 (3:20 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Mal 4:3 (3:21 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Isa 66:14: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 26:19: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 66:23: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 7:31: allusion, medium confidence
- Isa 66:22: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 66:24: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Mal 4:2–3 (3:20–21 LXX); Isa 66:14; Isa 26:19; Isa 66:23; Isa 66:22; Isa 66:24; allusion to 1 Cor 7:31.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 31 (CSEL 47:69–70; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/24/#p-31).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 32

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/24/#p-32
- Source: CSEL 47:70–72
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: God will restore even bodies devoured by beasts and fish, as Jonah shows; if what Scripture says of the soul is taken literally, so must be what it says of the body.

### Latin text

Sed ne solummodo eorum corporum resurrectio uidea-I tur praedicari, quae sepulcris demandantur, habes scriptum: et mandabo piscibus maris et eructabunt ossa, quae sunt comesta, et faciam compaginem ad compaginem et os ad o s. ergo, inquis, et pisces resuscitabuntur et cete-I rae bestiae et alites carniuorae, ut uomant quos comederunt, quia et apud Moysen legis exquiri sanguinem de omnibus bestiis? non utique. sed idcirco nominantur bestiae et pisces, in redibitionem carnis et sanguinis, quo magis exprimatur resurrectio etiam deuoratorum corporum, cum de ipsis deuoratoribus exactio edicitur. puto autem huius quoque diuinae potestatis documentum idoneum Ionam, cum incorruptus utramque substantiam, carnem atque animam, de aluo piscis euoluitur, — et utique triduo concoquendae carni (tam) uiscera ceti suffecissent quam capulum, quam sepulcrum, quam senium requietae atque conditae alicuius sepulturae, — saluo eo, quod et bestia feros in Christianum uel maxime nomen homines uel ipsos etiam iniquitatis angelos figurauit, de quibus sanguis exigetur per ultionem pensandam. quis ergo discendi magis adfinis quam praesumendi et credendi diligentior quam contendendi et diuinae potius sapientiae religiosus quam suae libidinosus, audiens aliquid a deo destinatum in carnes et cutes et neruos et ossa, aliud quid haec comm.entabitur, quasi non in hominem destinetur quod in istas substantias praedicatur? aut enim nihil in hominem destinatur, non liberalitas regni, non seueritas iudicii, non quodcumque est resurrectio, aut si in hominem destinatur, necesse est in eas substantias destinetur, ex quibus homo structus est, in quem destinatur. illud etiam de argutissimis istis demutatoribus ossuum et carnium et neruorum et sepulcrorum requiro, cur, si quando in animam quid pronuntiatur, nihil aliud animam interpretantur nec transfingunt eam in alterius rei argumentum, cum uero in aliquam speciem corporalem quid edicitur, omnia potius adseuerant quam quod nominatur? si corporalia parabolae, ergo et animalia, si non et animalia, ergo nec corporalia. tam enim corpus homo quam et anima; ut non possit altera species admittere aenigmata, altera excludere.

### English translation (Claude)

But lest the resurrection seem to be proclaimed only of those bodies that are committed to tombs, you have it written: “And I will command the fishes of the sea, and they shall cast up the bones that were eaten, and I will join joint to joint and bone to bone.” “So,” you say, “the fishes too will be raised, and the other beasts and the flesh-eating birds, so that they may vomit up those they devoured, since in Moses too you read that blood is required from all beasts?” Surely not. But beasts and fishes are named for this reason, with regard to the giving back of flesh and blood, so that the resurrection even of devoured bodies may be the more clearly expressed, when the demand is decreed upon the devourers themselves. And I think Jonah a fit proof of this divine power too, when he is rolled out of the belly of the fish unharmed in both substances, flesh and soul; and surely the bowels of the whale would have sufficed to digest flesh in three days as well as a coffin, a tomb, or the decay of some burial long at rest and closed; granted that the beast also figured men savage above all against the Christian name, or even the very angels of iniquity, from whom blood will be required by a vengeance to be paid out. Who, then, more inclined to learn than to presume, more careful to believe than to dispute, more reverent toward divine wisdom than eager for his own, hearing something appointed by God for flesh and skin and sinews and bones, will interpret these as something else, as though what is proclaimed for these substances were not appointed for man? For either nothing is appointed for man, not the generosity of the kingdom, not the severity of the judgment, not whatever the resurrection is; or, if it is appointed for man, it must be appointed for those substances of which the man is built for whom it is appointed. I ask this too of these most subtle transformers of bones and flesh and sinews and tombs: why, whenever something is said about the soul, do they interpret the soul as nothing else and do not transform it into a figure of some other thing, but when something is declared about some bodily kind, they assert that it is anything rather than what is named? If bodily things are parables, so are things of the soul; if things of the soul are not, neither are bodily things. For man is body as much as soul, so that one kind cannot admit riddles while the other excludes them.

### Scripture references

- Ezek 37:7: allusion, medium confidence
- Gen 9:5: allusion, high confidence
- Jonah 1:17 (2:1 LXX; 2:1 Vulg.): allusion, high confidence
- Jonah 2:10 (2:11 LXX; 2:11 Vulg.): allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- 1 En. 61.5 (1 Enoch): allusion, low confidence

### Translation notes

- The first quotation is not found in this form in the canonical books; it resembles 1 En. 61.5 (those devoured by the fish of the sea return) combined with Ezek 37:7; its source is uncertain. Allusions: Gen 9:5; Jonah 1:17 and 2:10 (2:1, 11 Vulg./LXX). “(tam)” is the edition's supplement.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 32 (CSEL 47:70–72; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/24/#p-32).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 33

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/24/#p-33
- Source: CSEL 47:72–73
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Christ did not speak only in parables, and even his parables are explained; his plain statements about judgment, the kingdom, and resurrection must be taken literally.

### Latin text

Satis haec de prophetico instrumento. ad euangelia nunc prouoco, hic quoque occursurus prius eidem astutiae eorum, qui proinde et dominum omnia in parabolis pronuntiasse contendunt, quia scriptum sit: haec omnia locutus est Iesus in parabolis et sine parabola non loquebatur ad illos, scilicet ad Iudaeos. nam et discipuli: quare, aiunt, in parabolis loqueris? et dominus: propterea in parabolis loquor ad eos, ut uidentes non uideant et audien tes non audiant, secundum Esaiam. quodsi ad Iudaeos in parabolis, iam non ad omnes; si (non) ad omnes in parabolis, iam non semper nec omnia parabolae, sed quaedam, cum ad quosdam, ad quosdam autem, dum ad ludaeos; nonnumquam plane et ad discipulos. sed quomodo referat scriptura considera: dicebat autem et parabolam ad eos. ergo et non parabolam dicebat, quia non notaretur, cum parabolam loquebatur, si ita semper loquebatur. et tamen nullam parabolam non aut ab ipso inuenias edissertatam, ut de seminatore in uerbi administrationem, aut a commentatore euangelii praeluminatam, ut iudicis superbi et uiduae instantis ad perseuerantiam orationis, aut ultro coniectandam, ut arboris fici dilatae in spem ad instar Iudaicae infructuositatis. quodsi nec parabolae obumbrant euangelii lucem, tanto abest, ut sententiae et definitiones, quarum aperta natura est, aliter quam sonant sapiant. definitionibus autem et sententiis dominus edicit siue iudicium siue regnum dei siue resurrectionem. tolerabilius erit, inquit, Tyro et Sidoni in die iudicii, et: dicite illis, quod adpropinquauerit regnum dei, et: retribuetur tibi in resurrectione iustorum. si nomina absolute sunt rerum, id est iudicii et regni dei et resurrectionis, ut nihil eorum in parabolam comprimi possit, nec ea in parabolas compellantur, quae ad dispositionem et transactionem regni et passionem iudicii et resurrectionis praedicantur; atque ita corporalia defendentur ut corporalibus destinata, id est non spiritalia, quia non figurata. nam et ideo praestruximus tam corpus animae quam et carnis obnoxium esse mercedibus pro communi operatione pensandis, ne corporalitas animae occasionem subministrans figurarum corporalitatem carnis excludat, cum utramque participem et regni et iudicii et resurrectionis oporteat credi. et nunc eo pergimus, uti corporalitatem carnalem proprie demonstremus a domino significari in omni resurrectionis mentione, salua animali, quam et ipsam pauci receperunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Enough of the prophetic documents. I now appeal to the Gospels, here too first meeting the same cunning of those who contend that the Lord likewise spoke everything in parables, because it is written: “All these things Jesus spoke in parables, and without a parable he did not speak to them,” that is, to the Jews. For the disciples too say, “Why do you speak in parables?” And the Lord: “For this reason I speak to them in parables, that seeing they may not see and hearing they may not hear,” according to Isaiah. But if to the Jews in parables, then not to all; if not to all in parables, then not always, nor is everything a parable, but some things, when spoken to some; and to some, namely to the Jews; now and then, admittedly, to the disciples too. But consider how Scripture reports it: “And he told them also a parable.” So he also spoke without parables, since it would not be noted when he spoke a parable if he always spoke so. And yet you will find no parable that was not either explained by himself, as that of the sower, of the ministry of the word; or lit up beforehand by the Gospel's narrator, as that of the proud judge and the persistent widow, of perseverance in prayer; or open to conjecture, as that of the fig tree spared in hope, after the pattern of Jewish unfruitfulness. But if not even the parables darken the light of the Gospel, much less do sentences and definitions, whose nature is open, mean anything other than they sound. And it is by definitions and sentences that the Lord declares the judgment, or the kingdom of God, or the resurrection: “It will be more tolerable,” he says, “for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment”; and, “Tell them that the kingdom of God has drawn near”; and, “It will be repaid to you at the resurrection of the just.” If these are the absolute names of things, that is, of judgment, the kingdom of God, and resurrection, so that none of them can be squeezed into a parable, then neither can the things proclaimed about the arrangement and conduct of the kingdom and the undergoing of judgment and resurrection be forced into parables; and so they will be defended as bodily, as appointed for bodily beings, that is, not spiritual, because not figurative. For this is why we laid down beforehand that the body of the soul as well as that of the flesh is liable to the rewards to be paid for their common work: lest the bodiliness of the soul, furnishing occasion for figures, exclude the bodiliness of the flesh, since both must be believed partners in the kingdom, the judgment, and the resurrection. And now we go on to show that it is properly the bodiliness of the flesh that the Lord signifies in every mention of resurrection, without prejudice to that of the soul, which few have accepted.

### Scripture references

- Matt 13:34: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 13:10: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 13:13: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 6:9: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 18:1: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 8:11: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 18:2: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 13:6: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 10:14: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 10:9: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 14:14: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations and allusions: Matt 13:34, 10, 13; Isa 6:9; Luke 18:1; the sower (Luke 8:11); the judge and the widow (Luke 18:2–8); the fig tree (Luke 13:6–9); Luke 10:14 (cf. Matt 11:22); Luke 10:9; Luke 14:14. The “body of the soul” refers to Tertullian's doctrine (ch. 17 and On the Soul) that the soul is corporeal. The digital text's “sine resurrectionem” is corrected to “siue”.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 33 (CSEL 47:72–73; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/24/#p-33).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 34

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/24/#p-34
- Source: CSEL 47:73–76
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Christ came to save the whole man who was lost, and he promised to lose nothing the Father gave him but to raise it on the last day; so the flesh too will be saved.

### Latin text

In primis cum ad hoc uenisse se dicit, uti quod periit saluum faciat, quid dicis perisse? hominem sine dubio. totumne an ex parte? utique totum, siquidem transgressio, quae perditionis humanae causa est, tam animae instinctu ex concupiscentia quam et carnis actu ex degustatione commissa totum hominem elogio transgressionis inscripsit atque exinde merito perditionis impleuit. totus itaque saluus fiet qui perit totus delinquendo. nisi si et ouis illa sine corpore amittitur et sine corpore reuocatur. nam si caro quoque eius cum anima, quod pecus totum est, humeris boni pastoris aduehitur, ex utraque utique substantia restituendi hominis exemplum est. aut quam indignum deo, dimidium hominem redigere in salutem, paene minus facere **, cum etiam saecularium principum plena semper indulgentia uindicetur. diabolus ualidior in hominis iniuriam intellegetur, totum eum elidens? deus infirmior renuntiabitur, non totum eum releuans? atquin et apostolus suggerit, ubi delictum abundauerit, illic gratiam superabundasse. quomodo denique saluus habebitur qui poterit et perditus dici? carne scilicet perditus; [anima uero saluus] nisi quod iam et anima in perdito constituatur necesse est, ut salua effici possit; id enim saluum effici oportebit, quod perditum fuerit. porro autem recipimus animae inmortalitatem, ut perdita non in interitum credatur sed in supplicium. id est in gehennam. et si ita est, iam non animam spectabit salus, saluam scilicet sua natura per inmortalitatem, sed carnem potius, quam interibilem constat apud omnes. aut si et anima interibilis, id est non inmortalis, quod et caro, iam et carni forma illa ex aequo proficere debebit proinde mortali et interibili, qua id quod perit saluum facturus est dominus. nolo nunc contentioso fune deducere, hac an illac hominem perditio depostulet. dum utrimque eum salus destinet in ambas substantias peraequata. ecce enim ex quacumque substantia hominem perisse praesumpseris, ex altera non perit. saluus ergo erit iam ex qua non perit et saluus nihilominus fiet ex qua perit, habes totius hominis restitutionem, dum et quodcumque eius perit saluum facturus est dominus et quodcumque non perit utique non erit perditurus. quis ultra de utriusque substantiae securitate dubitabit, cum altera salutem consecutura sit, altera amissura eam non sit? et tamen adhuc sensu rem exprimit dominus ego dicens ueni. non ut meam, sed ut patris, qui me misit, faciam uoluntatem. quam? oro te. ut omne, quod dedit mihi, non perdam ex eo quicquam sed resuscitem illud nouissima die. quid a patre christus acceperat. nisi quod et induerat? hominem sine dubio, carnis animaeque texturam. neutrum ergo eorum, quae accepit, perire patietur, immo nec quicquam utriusque, immo nec modicum. quodsi modicum caro, ergo nec carnem, quia nec modicum. [nec quicquam, quia nec quicquam] atquin si non et carnem resuscitabit nouissima die, iam non modicum patietur perire de homine, sed pro tanta dixerim parte prope totum. ingerens amplius: hoc est patris uoluntas, ut omnis, qui aspicit filium et credit in eum, habeat uitam aeternam et suscitem illum nouissimo die plenitudinem extruit resurrectionis. distribuit enim utrique substantiae per officia propria mercedem salutis, et carni, per quam filius aspiciebatur, et animae, per quam credebatur. ergo, dices, illis erit promissa res, a quibus Christus uidebatur. sit plane ita, ut et ad nos eadem spes inde manauerit. nam si uidentibus et idcirco credentibus fructuosa tunc fuerunt opera carnis atque animae, multo magis nobis. feliciores enim qui non uident et credent; quando, et si illis negaretur carnis resurrectio. certe felicioribus competisset. quomodo autem felices, si ex parte perituri?

### English translation (Claude)

First, when he says that he came for this, to save what was lost, what do you say was lost? Man, without doubt. Whole or in part? Whole, surely, since the transgression which is the cause of human perdition, committed as much by the soul's impulse out of desire as by the flesh's act of tasting, inscribed the whole man with the charge of transgression and so filled him with the desert of perdition. So the whole man will be saved who perished wholly by sinning; unless that sheep too is lost without its body and brought back without its body. For if its flesh too, together with its soul, which makes the whole animal, is carried on the shoulders of the good shepherd, it is surely an example of man to be restored in both substances. Or how unworthy of God to bring half a man back to salvation, to do almost less …, when even the pardon of worldly princes is always claimed as full! Will the devil be understood to be stronger in injuring man, dashing him down whole? Will God be declared weaker, not raising him up whole? Yet the apostle too suggests that where sin abounded, there grace has superabounded. How, finally, will he be held saved who can also be called lost? Lost in the flesh, of course; except that the soul too must be placed among the lost, so that it can be made safe, for what must be made safe is what was lost. Now, however, we accept the immortality of the soul, so that, when lost, it is believed lost not to destruction but to punishment, that is, to Gehenna. And if so, salvation will no longer look to the soul, safe by its nature through immortality, but rather to the flesh, which all agree is perishable. Or if the soul too is perishable, that is, not immortal, like the flesh, then that rule by which the Lord will save what perishes must equally benefit the flesh, being likewise mortal and perishable. I do not wish now to drag out with a contentious rope whether perdition claims man this way or that, so long as salvation, levelled equally over both substances, claims him from both sides. For see: in whichever substance you suppose man to have perished, in the other he does not perish. So he will be safe in the one in which he does not perish, and will be made safe no less in the one in which he perishes: you have the restoration of the whole man, since the Lord will save whatever of him perishes and surely will not lose whatever does not perish. Who will any longer doubt the safety of either substance, when one is to obtain salvation and the other is not to lose it? And yet the Lord expresses the matter still more plainly, saying: “I have come not to do my own will but the will of the Father who sent me.” What will, I ask you? “That of all that he has given me I should lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.” What had Christ received from the Father but what he had also put on? Man, without doubt, the fabric of flesh and soul. So he will not let either of those he received perish, nor anything of either, nor even a little. If the flesh is a little, then not the flesh either, because not even a little. And yet, if he does not raise the flesh too on the last day, he will let not a little of man perish but, I would say, since it is so large a part, nearly the whole. Adding further, “This is the will of the Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day,” he builds up the fullness of the resurrection. For he distributes the reward of salvation to both substances according to their proper functions: to the flesh, through which the Son was seen, and to the soul, through which he was believed. “So,” you will say, “the promise will belong to those by whom Christ was seen.” Let it be so, provided the same hope has flowed from there to us as well. For if the works of flesh and soul were fruitful then to those who saw and therefore believed, much more to us. For more blessed are those who do not see and yet believe; so that even if the resurrection of the flesh were denied to those others, it would surely have belonged to the more blessed. But how are they blessed if they are to perish in part?

### Scripture references

- Luke 19:10: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 15:4: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 15:5: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 5:20: allusion, high confidence
- John 6:38: quotation, high confidence
- John 6:39: quotation, high confidence
- John 6:40: quotation, high confidence
- John 20:29: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations and allusions: Luke 19:10; Luke 15:4–6; Rom 5:20; John 6:38–40; John 20:29. The digital text marks a gap (“**”) after “paene minus facere”; it is shown as “…”. Two phrases bracketed in the edition as deletions are left out: “[anima uero saluus]” (“but saved in the soul”) and “[nec quicquam, quia nec quicquam]”. The digital text's “quia ultra” is corrected to “quis ultra” (“who … any longer”), which the question requires.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 34 (CSEL 47:73–76; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/24/#p-34).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 35

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/35/#p-35
- Source: CSEL 47:76–77
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Christ's warning about God who can destroy body and soul in Gehenna, the numbered hairs, the gnashing of teeth, and the wedding feast all presuppose a bodily resurrection.

### Latin text

Sed et praecipit eum potius timendum, qui et corpus et animam occidat in gehennam, id est dominum solum, non qui corpus occidant, animae autem nihil nocere possint, id est humanas potestates. adeo hic et anima inmortalis natura recognoscitur, quae non possit occidi ab hominibus, et carnis esse mortalitatem, cuius sit occisio, atque ita resurrectionem quoque mortuorum carnis esse, quae in gehennam nisi resuscitata non poterit occidi. sed quoniam et hic de interpretatione corporis [questio cauillatur, ego corpus hominis non aliud intellego quam omnem istam struem carnis. quoquo genere materiarum concinnatur atque uariatur, quod uidetur, quod tenetur, quod denique ab hominibus occiditur. sic et parietis corpus non aliud admittam quam caementa, quam saxa, quam lateres. si quis arcanum aliquod corpus inducit, ostendat reuelet probet ipsum etiam esse, quod occidatur ab homine. et de illo erit dictum. item si animae corpus opponitur. uacabit astutia. cum enim utrumque proponitur, corpus atque animam, occidi in gehennam, distinguitur corpus ab anima, et relinquitur corpus intellegi id, quod in promptu sit, caro scilicet, quae sicut occidetur in gehennam. si non magis a deo timuerit occidi, ita et uiuificabitur in uitam aeternam, si maluerit ab hominibus potius interfici. proinde si quis occisionem carnis atque animae in gehennam ad interitum et finem utriusque substantiae adripiet, non ad supplicium, quasi consumendarum, non quasi puniendarum, recordetur ignem gehennae aeternum praedicari in poenam aeternam, et inde aeternitatem occisionis agnoscat, propterea humanae ut temporali praetimendam. tunc et aeternas substantias credet, quarum aeterna sit occisio in poenam. certe cum post resurrectionem corpus cum anima occidi habeat in gehennam, satis de utroque constabit, et de carnali resurrectione et de aeterna occisione. absurdissimum alioquin, si idcirco resuscitata caro occidetur in gehennam, uti finiatur, quod et non resuscitata pateretur. in hoc scilicet reficietur, ne sit cui non esse iam euenit. eidem nos spei fulciens passerum quoque subiungit exemplum, quod ex duobus non cadat alter in terram sine dei uoluntate, ut et carnem, quae ceciderit in terram, proinde credas et resurgere posse per eiusdem dei uoluntatem. nam et si passeribus hoc non licet, sed nos multis passeribus antestamus eo, quod cadentes resurgamus, quorum denique capillos capitis omnes numeratos adfirmans saluos utique repromittit. perituros enim quae ratio in numerum redegisset? nisi quia hoc est: ut omne, quod pater mihi dedit, non perdam ex eo quicquam, id est nec capillum, sicut nec oculum nec dentem. ceterum unde erit fletus et dentium frendor, nisi ex oculis et ex dentibus? occiso scilicet etiam corpore in gehennam et detruso in tenebras exteriores, quae oculorum proprie tormenta sunt. si quis in nuptiis minus dignis operibus fuerit indutus, constringendus statim manibus et pedibus, utpote qui cum corpore (re)surrexerit sic ergo et recumbere ipsum in dei regno et sedere in thronis Christi et adsistere ad dexteram tunc uel sinistram et edere de ligno uitae corporalis dispositionis fidelissima indicia sunt.

### English translation (Claude)

But he also teaches that he is rather to be feared who kills both body and soul in Gehenna, that is, the Lord alone, not those who kill the body but can do nothing to the soul, that is, human powers. So here the soul is recognized as immortal by nature, since it cannot be killed by men, and mortality is recognized as belonging to the flesh, which can be killed; and so the resurrection of the dead too belongs to the flesh, which cannot be killed in Gehenna unless it has been raised. But since here too a quibble is raised over the interpretation of “body,” I understand the body of man to be nothing other than this whole structure of flesh, of whatever kind of materials it is put together and diversified: what is seen, what is held, what, in short, is killed by men. So too I will admit the body of a wall to be nothing other than rubble, stones, and bricks. If anyone brings in some secret body, let him show it, reveal it, prove that it too is what is killed by man, and then it will have been said of that. Likewise, if the body of the soul is put forward, the trick will be empty. For since both body and soul are set forth as killed in Gehenna, the body is distinguished from the soul, and what remains to be understood as body is what is at hand, namely the flesh; which, just as it will be killed in Gehenna if it has not rather feared to be killed by God, so will be made alive to eternal life if it has chosen rather to be put to death by men. Likewise, if anyone takes the killing of flesh and soul in Gehenna as the destruction and end of both substances, not their punishment, as if they were to be consumed rather than punished, let him remember that the fire of Gehenna is proclaimed eternal, for eternal punishment, and from this let him recognize that the killing is eternal, and therefore to be feared before human killing, which is temporal. Then he will also believe the substances eternal whose killing is eternal, for punishment. Certainly, since after the resurrection the body with the soul is to be killed in Gehenna, both points will be established well enough: the bodily resurrection and the eternal killing. It would otherwise be most absurd that the raised flesh should be killed in Gehenna in order to be ended, which it would undergo even without being raised; it would be restored for this purpose, that what had already ceased to be should not be. Propping us up in the same hope, he adds the example of the sparrows as well, that not one of two falls to the ground without the will of God, so that you may believe that the flesh too, which has fallen to the ground, can likewise rise again by the will of the same God. For even if this is not permitted to sparrows, yet we are worth more than many sparrows in that, falling, we rise again; and in declaring that all the hairs of our head are numbered, he surely promises that they are safe. For what reason would have brought into a count things that were to perish? Unless it is this: “that of all that the Father has given me I should lose nothing,” that is, not a hair, just as not an eye or a tooth. Otherwise, where will the weeping and gnashing of teeth come from, if not from eyes and teeth? When, that is, the body too has been killed in Gehenna and thrust into the outer darkness, which is properly a torment of the eyes. If anyone at the wedding is clothed in less worthy works, he is at once to be bound hand and foot, as one who has risen with his body. So too reclining in the kingdom of God, sitting on the thrones of Christ, standing at the right hand or the left, and eating of the tree of life are most faithful indications of a bodily arrangement.

### Scripture references

- Matt 10:28: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 25:46: allusion, medium confidence
- Matt 10:29: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 10:30: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 10:31: allusion, high confidence
- John 6:39: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 8:12: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 22:11: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 22:13: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 13:29: allusion, medium confidence
- Matt 19:28: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 25:33: allusion, medium confidence
- Rev 2:7: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations and allusions: Matt 10:28–31; Matt 25:41, 46; John 6:39; Matt 8:12; Matt 22:11–13; Luke 13:29; Matt 19:28; Matt 25:33; Rev 2:7. A stray opening bracket in the digital text (“[questio cauillatur”) does not mark a deletion, since the sentence needs the words; it is ignored. “(re)surrexerit” is the edition's supplement.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 35 (CSEL 47:76–77; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/35/#p-35).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 36

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/35/#p-36
- Source: CSEL 47:77–79
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Christ's answer to the Sadducees about the woman with seven husbands confirms a real resurrection of the flesh, which will then be changed and made like the angels.

### Latin text

Videamus nunc, an et Saducaeorum uersutiam elidens nostram magis sententiam erexerit. causa, opinor, quaestionis fuit destructio resurrectionis, siquidem Saducaei neque animae neque carnis admittunt salutem et ideo, ex qua uel maxime specie resurrectionis fides. labefactatur, ex ea argumentum problemati suo accommodauerunt, de carnis scilicet obtentu nupturae necne post resurrectionem, sub eius mulieris persona, quae septem fratribus nupta in dubio haberetur, cui eorum restitueretur. porro seruentur sensus tam quaestionis quam responsionis, et controuersiae occursum est. si enim Saducaei quidem respuebant resurrectionem, dominus autem eam confirmabat, et scripturarum ignaros increpans, earum scilicet quae resurrectionem praedicassent, et uirtutis dei incredulos, idoneae utique mortuis resuscitandis, postremo subiciens: quoniam autem mortui resurgant, sine dubio et confirmando esse quod negabatur, id est resurrectionem mortuorum apud deum uiuorum, talem quoque eam confirmabat esse, qualis negabatur, utriusque scilicet substantiae humanae. neque enim, si nupturos tunc negauit, ideo nec resurrecturos demonstrauit. atquin filios resurrectionis appellat, ut per eam quodammodo nasci habentes, post quam non nubent, t sed resuscitati. similes enim erunt angelis, qua non nupturi, quia nec morituri, sed (et) qua transituri in statum angelicum per indumentum illud incorruptibilitatis, per substantiae, resuscitatae tamen, demutationem. ceterum nec quaereretur nupturi siue morituri necne rursus essemus, si non eius uel maxime substantiae restitutio in dubium uocaretur, quae proprie et morte et nuptiis fungitur, id est carnis. habes igitur dominum confirmantem aduersus haereticos Iudaeorum, quod et nunc negatur apud Saducaeos Christianorum, solidam resurrectionem.

### English translation (Claude)

Let us see now whether, in crushing the craftiness of the Sadducees, he has not rather set up our view. The cause of the question was, I think, the overthrow of the resurrection, since the Sadducees admit the salvation neither of soul nor of flesh; and so, from the aspect of the resurrection by which faith is most shaken, they fitted an argument to their problem, namely the flesh's pretext of marrying or not after the resurrection, in the character of the woman who, married to seven brothers, was held in doubt as to which of them she would be restored to. Now let the sense of both question and answer be kept, and the controversy is met. For if the Sadducees rejected the resurrection while the Lord confirmed it, rebuking them as ignorant of the Scriptures (those, that is, which had proclaimed the resurrection) and as unbelieving of the power of God (well able, surely, to raise the dead), and finally adding, “But that the dead rise,” then without doubt, in confirming that what was denied exists, namely the resurrection of the dead with the God of the living, he confirmed it to be such as it was denied to be, that is, of both human substances. For if he denied that they would marry then, he did not thereby show that they would not rise. On the contrary, he calls them sons of the resurrection, as having in a manner to be born through it, after which they will not marry, being raised. For they will be like angels, in that they will not marry, because they will not die either, but also in that they will pass into the angelic state through that clothing of incorruptibility, through a change of substance, a substance nonetheless raised. Besides, the question whether we would marry or die again would not be asked unless the restoration of that substance above all were called in doubt which properly undergoes both death and marriage, that is, the flesh. You have, then, the Lord confirming against the heretics of the Jews what is now denied among the Sadducees of the Christians: a solid resurrection.

### Scripture references

- Matt 22:23: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 22:29: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 22:30: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 22:31: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 22:32: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 20:36: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The passage is Matt 22:23–32 and Luke 20:27–38 (“sons of the resurrection,” “like angels,” Luke 20:36). A stray “t” before “sed resuscitati” in the digital text is ignored.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 36 (CSEL 47:77–79; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/35/#p-36).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/35/#p-37
- Source: CSEL 47:79–80
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: “The flesh profits nothing” in John 6 refers to giving life, which belongs to the Spirit and the Word; the same Gospel says that all in the tombs will hear the Son's voice and come forth.

### Latin text

Sic et si carnem ait nihil prodesse, ex materia dicti dirigendus est sensus. nam quia durum et intolerabilem existimauerunt sermonem eius, quasi uere carnem suam illis edendam determinasset, ut in spiritum disponeret statum salutis. praemisit: spiritus est qui uiuificat atque ita subiunxit: caro nihil prodest, sed ad uiuificandum scilicet. exequitur etiam, quid uelit intellegi spiritum: uerba. quae locutus sum uobis, spiritus sunt, uita sunt, sicut et supra: qui audit sermones meos et credit in eum, qui me misit, habet uitam aeternam et in iudicium non ueniet sed transiet de morte ad uitam. itaque sermonem constituens uiuificatorem, quia spiritus et uita sermo, eundem etiam carnem suam dixit, quia et sermo caro erat factus, proinde in causam uitae adpetendus et deuorandus auditu et ruminandus intellectu et fide digerendus. nam et paulo ante carnem suam panem quoque caelestem pronuntiarat, urguens usquequaque per allegoriam necessariorum pabulorum memoriam patrum, qui panes et carnes Aegyptiorum praeuerterant diuinae uocationi. igitur conuersus ad recogitatus illorum, quia senserat dispargendos, caro, ait, nihil prodest. quid hoc ad destruendam carnis resurrectionem, quasi non liceat esse aliquid, quod etsi nihil prosit, aliud tamen ei prodesse possit? spiritus prodest; uiuificat enim. caro nihil prodest; mortificatur enim. itaque secundum nos magis collocauit utriusque propositionem. ostendens enim, quid prosit et quid non prosit, pariter inluminauit, quid cui prosit, spiritum scilicet carni, mortificatae uiuificatorem. ueniet enim hora, inquit, cum mortui audient uocem filii dei et qui audierint uiuent. quid mortuum nisi caro? et quid uox dei nisi sermo? et quid sermo nisi spiritus? merito carnem resuscitaturus, quod factus est ipse, et ex morte, quam passus est ipse, et ex sepulcro, quo inlatus est ipse. denique cum dicit: ne miremini, quod ueniet hora, in qua omnes, qui in monumentis sunt. audient uocem filii dei et procedent qui bona fecerunt in uitae resurrectionem. qui mala in resurrectionem iudicii, nemo iam poterit aliud mortuos interpretari. qui sint in monumentis, nisi corpora et carnem, quia nec ipsa monumenta aliud quam cadauerum stabula. siquidem et ipsi homines ueteres, id est peccatores. id est mortui per ignorantiam dei, quos monumenta intellegendos argumentantur haeretici. de monumentis processuri in iudicium aperte praedicantur. ceterum quomodo de monumentis monumenta procedent?

### English translation (Claude)

So too, if he says that the flesh profits nothing, the sense must be governed by the subject of the saying. For since they thought his word hard and intolerable, as if he had determined that his flesh was really to be eaten by them, he first said, in order to set the state of salvation in the spirit, “It is the spirit that gives life,” and then added, “the flesh profits nothing,” for giving life, that is. He goes on to say what he wants the spirit to be understood as: “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit, they are life”; as also above: “He who hears my words and believes in him who sent me has eternal life and does not come into judgment but passes from death to life.” So, establishing the word as the life-giver, because the word is spirit and life, he also called the same word his flesh, because the Word had also become flesh; and so it is to be sought for the sake of life, and devoured by hearing, chewed over by understanding, and digested by faith. For a little earlier he had also declared his flesh to be the heavenly bread, pressing throughout, by an allegory of necessary foods, the memory of the fathers who had preferred the loaves and the flesh of the Egyptians to the divine calling. So, turning to their thoughts, since he had perceived that they were about to be scattered, he says, “The flesh profits nothing.” What has this to do with destroying the resurrection of the flesh, as if there could not be something which, though it profits nothing, can still be profited by something else? The spirit profits, for it gives life. The flesh profits nothing, for it is put to death. So he has rather set out the proposition about both in our favour. For in showing what profits and what does not, he likewise made clear what profits what: the spirit profits the flesh, namely, as the life-giver of what has been put to death. “For the hour will come,” he says, “when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.” What is dead but the flesh? And what is the voice of God but the word? And what is the word but spirit? Fittingly he will raise the flesh, which he himself became, and from death, which he himself suffered, and from the tomb, into which he himself was carried. Finally, when he says, “Do not marvel that the hour will come in which all who are in the tombs will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who have done good will come forth to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment,” no one can any longer interpret the dead who are in the tombs as anything but bodies and flesh, since tombs themselves are nothing but lodgings for corpses. For even the “old men,” that is, the sinners, that is, those dead through ignorance of God, whom the heretics argue are to be understood by the tombs, are plainly proclaimed as coming out of the tombs to judgment. How else will tombs come out of tombs?

### Scripture references

- John 6:60: allusion, high confidence
- John 6:63: quotation, high confidence
- John 5:24: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:14: allusion, high confidence
- John 6:51: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 16:3: allusion, medium confidence
- John 6:66: allusion, medium confidence
- John 5:25: quotation, high confidence
- John 5:28: quotation, high confidence
- John 5:29: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations and allusions: John 6:60, 63; John 5:24; John 1:14; John 6:32–51 (heavenly bread); Exod 16:3 and Num 11:5 (the flesh-pots and bread of Egypt); John 6:66 (the disciples who left); John 5:25, 28–29. Tertullian here reads the eating of Christ's flesh in John 6 as receiving his word by faith.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 37 (CSEL 47:79–80; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/35/#p-37).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 38

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/35/#p-38
- Source: CSEL 47:80–81
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The dead whom Christ raised were a foretaste and pledge of the bodily resurrection, though they were raised only to die again, not to glory.

### Latin text

Post dicta domini facta etiam eius quid sapere credamus, de capulis de sepulcris mortuos resuscitantis? cui rei istud? si ad simplicem ostentationem potestatis aut ad prae-! sentem gratiam redanimationis, non adeo magnum illi denuo morituros suscitare. enimuero si ad fidem potius sequestrandam futurae resurrectionis. ergo et illa corporalis praescribitur de documenti sui forma. nec sustinebo dicentes idcirco tunc resurrectionem animae soli destinatam in carnem quoque praecucurrisse, quia non potuisset aliter ostendi resurrectio animae inuisibilis nisi per uisibilis substantiae resuscitationem. male deum norunt qui non putant illum posse quod non putant; et tamen sciunt potuisse, si instrumentum Iohannis norunt. qui enim animas adhuc solas martyrum sub altari quiescentes conspectui subdidit, posset utique et resurgentes oculis exhibere sine carne. at ego deum malo decipere non posse, de fallacia solummodo infirmum, ne aliter documenta praemisisse quam rem disposuisse uideatur, immo ne, si exemplum resurrectionis sine carne non ualuit inducere, multo magis plenitudinem exempli [in eadem substantia] exhibere non possit. nullum uero exemplum maius est eo, cuius exemplum est. maius est autem, si animae cum corpore resuscitabuntur in documentum sine corpore resurgendi, ut tota hominis salus dimidiae patrocinaretur, quando exemplorum condicio illud potius expeteret, quod minus haberetur, animae dico solius resurrectionm, uelut gustum carnis etiam resurrecturae suo in tempore. atque adeo, secundum nostram uero aestimationem, exempla illa mortuorum a domino suscitatorum commendabant quidem et carnis et animae resurrectionem, ne cui substantiae negaretur hoc donum, qua tamen exempla, eo minus aliquid edebant. non enim in gloriam nec in incorruptibilitatem sed in mortem aliam suscitabantur.

### English translation (Claude)

After the Lord's sayings, what are we to believe his deeds mean, when he raised the dead from biers and tombs? For what purpose was it? If for a mere display of power, or for the present favour of bringing back to life, it was no great thing for him to raise those who would die again. But if rather to deposit a pledge of faith in the future resurrection, then that resurrection too is determined to be bodily by the form of its proof. Nor will I bear those who say that a resurrection then appointed for the soul alone ran ahead in the flesh as well because the resurrection of the invisible soul could not have been shown except by the raising of the visible substance. They know God poorly who do not think him able to do what they themselves cannot think of; and yet they know he could have, if they know the document of John. For he who set before our sight the souls of the martyrs, still alone, resting under the altar, could surely have shown them to our eyes rising without flesh as well. But I prefer a God who cannot deceive, weak only in respect of falsehood, lest he seem to have sent ahead proofs different from the way he arranged the reality; indeed, lest, if he could not bring in an example of resurrection without flesh, he be much less able to show the fullness of the example. But no example is greater than that of which it is an example. And it would be greater if souls were raised with the body as a proof of rising without the body, so that the salvation of the whole man served as patron for that of half; whereas the nature of examples would rather call for what was held to be less, I mean the resurrection of the soul alone, as a foretaste of the flesh too, which is to rise in its own time. And so, by our true reckoning, those examples of the dead raised by the Lord did commend the resurrection of both flesh and soul, lest this gift be denied to either substance; yet, as examples, they set forth something less. For they were raised not to glory or incorruptibility but to another death.

### Scripture references

- Luke 7:14: allusion, high confidence
- Mark 5:41: allusion, high confidence
- John 11:43: allusion, high confidence
- Rev 6:9: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions: Luke 7:14–15; Mark 5:41–42; John 11:43–44; Rev 6:9 (the souls under the altar). “[in eadem substantia]”, bracketed in the edition as a deletion, is left out.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 38 (CSEL 47:80–81; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/35/#p-38).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 39

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/35/#p-39
- Source: CSEL 47:81–82
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The apostles preached the same bodily resurrection the Pharisees believed and the Sadducees denied, and the Athenians mocked Paul precisely because he preached a bodily one.

### Latin text

Quam Christus ediderit resurrectionem, apostolica quoque instrumenta testantur. nam et apostolis nullum aliud negotium fuit, dumtaxat apud Israhelem. quam ueteris testamenti resignandi et noui consignandi et potius iam dei in Christo contionandi. ita et de resurrectione nihil noui intulerunt, nisi quod et ipsam in gloriam Christi adnuntiabant, de cetero simplici et nota iam fide receptam sine ulla qualitatis quaestione, solis refragantibus Saducaeis. adeo facilius fuit negari in totum mortuorum resurrectionem quam aliter intellegi. habes Paulum apud summos sacerdotes sub tribuno inter Saducaeos et Pharisaeos fidei suae professorem: uiri, inquit, fratres, ego Pharisaeus sum, filius Pharisaeorum, de spe nunc et de resurrectione iudicor apud uos, utique communi, ne, quia iam transgressor legis uidebatur, de praecipuo fidei totius articulo. id est de resurrectione, ad Saducaeos sapere existimaretur. ita quam nolebat uideri rescindere fidem resurrectionis utique confirmabat secundum Pharisaeos, respuens negatores eius, Saducaeos. proinde et apud Agrippam nihil se ait proferre citra quam prophetae adnuntiassent. ergo seruabat resurrectionem quoque, qualem prophetae adnuntiarant. nam et de resurrectione mortuorum apud Moysen scriptum commemorans corporalem eam norat, in qua scilicet sanguis hominis exquiri habebit. itaque talem praedicabat, qualem et Pharisaei susceperant et dominus ipse defenderat et Saducaei, ne talem quoque crederent, in totum esse noluerant. sed nec Athenienses aliam intellexerant a Paulo portendi. denique inriserant, non inrisuri omnino, si animae solius restitutionem ab eo audissent; suscepissent enim uernaculae suae philosophiae frequentiorem praesumptionem. at ubi iam nationes praeconium resurrectionis inauditae retro ipsa nouitate concussit et digna incredulitas rei tantae quaestionibus fidem torquere coepit, tunc et apostolus per totum paene instrumentum fidem huius spei corroborare curauit, et esse eam ostendens et nondum transactam et. de quo magis quaerebatur, corporalem et, quod insuper dubitabatur, non aliter corporalem.

### English translation (Claude)

What resurrection Christ proclaimed the apostolic documents also attest. For the apostles too had no other business, at least among Israel, than to unseal the old covenant and seal the new, and above all to preach God in Christ. So they brought nothing new concerning the resurrection either, except that they announced it too to the glory of Christ; otherwise it was received by a simple and already familiar faith, without any question about its nature, only the Sadducees opposing. So much easier was it to deny the resurrection of the dead altogether than to understand it otherwise. You have Paul before the chief priests, under the tribune, among Sadducees and Pharisees, professing his faith: “Men, brothers,” he says, “I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am now on trial before you concerning the hope and the resurrection,” the common one, surely, lest, since he already seemed a transgressor of the law, he be thought to side with the Sadducees on the chief article of the whole faith, that is, the resurrection. So the faith in the resurrection which he did not wish to seem to rescind he surely confirmed in the Pharisees' sense, rejecting its deniers, the Sadducees. Likewise before Agrippa he says that he puts forward nothing beyond what the prophets had announced. So he kept the resurrection too such as the prophets had announced it. For in recalling what is written in Moses about the resurrection of the dead as well, he knew it to be bodily, one, namely, in which the blood of man will be required. So he preached it such as the Pharisees had received it and the Lord himself had defended it, and as the Sadducees, rather than believe it such, had wished it not to exist at all. Nor did the Athenians understand him to herald any other. In short, they mocked, who would not have mocked at all if they had heard from him of the restoration of the soul alone; for they would have welcomed the quite common presumption of their home-grown philosophy. But when the proclamation of a resurrection never heard of before shook the nations by its very novelty, and a fitting incredulity at so great a thing began to rack faith with questions, then the apostle too took care throughout almost his whole document to strengthen faith in this hope, showing both that it exists and that it has not yet taken place, and, what was most questioned, that it is bodily, and, what was doubted besides, that it is bodily in no other sense.

### Scripture references

- Acts 23:6: quotation, high confidence
- Acts 26:22: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 9:5: allusion, medium confidence
- Acts 17:32: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions and quotations: Acts 23:6; Acts 26:22; Gen 9:5 (blood required); Acts 17:32. The digital text's “inqiserant” is corrected to “inriserant” (“they mocked”), required by the following “non inrisuri” and by Acts 17:32.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 39 (CSEL 47:81–82; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/35/#p-39).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 40

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/35/#p-40
- Source: CSEL 47:82–85
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Paul's “outer man” that is being corrupted means the flesh worn down by persecution in this life, not flesh destined to perish; flesh and soul that suffer together will be glorified together.

### Latin text

Nihil autem mirum, si et ex ipsius instrumento captantur argumenta, cum oporteat haereses esse; quae esse non possent, si non et perperam scripturae intellegi possent. nactae denique haereses duos homines ab apostolo editos, interiorem, id est animam, et exteriorem, id est carnem, salutem quidem animae, id est interiori homini, exitium uero carni, id est exteriori adiudicauerunt, quia scriptum sit Corinthiis: nam etsi homo noster exterior corrumpitur, sed interior renouatur die et die. porro nec anima per semetipsam homo, quae figmento iam homini appellato postea inserta est, nec caro sine anima homo, quae post exilium animae cadauer inscribitur. ita uocabulum homo consertarum substantiarum duarum quodammodo fibula est, sub quo uocabulo non possunt esse nisi cohaerentes. porro apostolus interiorem hominem non tam animam quam mentem atque animum intellegi mauult, id est non substantiam ipsam, sed substantiae saporem. siquidem Ephesiis scribens in interiorem hominem habitare Christum, sensibus utique intimandum dominum significauit. denique adiunxit: per fidem et in cordibus uestris et in dilectione, fidem quidem et dilectionem non substantiua animae ponens sed conceptiua, in cordibus autem dicens, quae substantiua sunt carnis, iam et ipsum interiorem hominem carni deputauit, quem in corde constituit. inspice nunc, quomodo exteriorem quidem hominem corrumpi allegarit, interiorem uero renouari die ac die, ne illam corruptelam carnis adfirmes, quam ex die mortis in perpetuum defectura patiatur, sed quam in istius uitae spatio ante mortem et usque ad mortem uexationibus et pressuris, tormentis atque suppliciis nominis causa experitur. nam et homo interior hic utique renouari habebit, per suggestum spiritus proficiens fide et disciplina die ac die, non illic, id est non post resurrectionem, ubi non utique die ac die renouari habemus, sed semel ad summam. de sequentibus disce: quod enim ad praesens est, inquit, temporale et leue pressurae nostrae, per supergressum in supergressum aeternum gloriae pondus perficit nobis, non intuentibus quae uidentur, id est passiones, sed quae non uidentur, id est mercedes. quae enim uidentur temporalia sunt, quae uero non uidentur aeterna sunt. pressuras enim et laesuras, quibus corrumpitur homo exterior, ut leues et temporales, idcirco contemnendas adfirmat, praeferens mercedum aeternarum inuisibilium et gloriae pondus in compensationem laborum, quos hic caro patiendo corrumpitur. adeo non illa est corruptio, quam in perpetuum carnis interitum ad resurrectionem expellendam exteriori homini adscribunt. sic et alibi: siquidem, ait, compatimur uti et conglorificemur: reputo enim non dignas esse passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam, quae in nos habet reuelari. et hic minora ostendit incommoda praemiis suis. porro si per carnem compatimur, cuius est proprie passionibus corrumpi, eiusdem erit et quod pro compassione promittitur. atque adeo, carni adscripturus pressurarum proprietatem, ut et supra, dicit: cum uenissemus autem in Macedoniam, nullam remissionem habuit caro nostra; dehinc, ut et animae det compassionem: in omnibus, inquit, compressi: extrinsecus pugnae, debellantes scilicet carnem, intrinsecus timor, adflictans scilicet animam. adeo etsi corrumpitur homo exterior, non ut amittens resurrectionem sed ut sustinens uexationem corrumpi intellegitur, et hoc non sine interiore. ita amborum erit etiam conglorificari sicut et compati. secundum collegia laborum consortia quoque decurrant necesse est praemiorum.

### English translation (Claude)

It is no wonder, however, if arguments are snatched even from his own document, since there must be heresies, which could not exist if the Scriptures could not also be wrongly understood. So the heresies, having come upon the two men set forth by the apostle, the inner, that is, the soul, and the outer, that is, the flesh, have awarded salvation to the soul, that is, to the inner man, but destruction to the flesh, that is, to the outer, because it is written to the Corinthians: “For though our outer man is being corrupted, yet the inner is being renewed day by day.” But neither is the soul by itself man, since it was inserted afterwards into the formed thing already called man; nor is the flesh without the soul man, since after the soul's exile it is entitled a corpse. So the word “man” is in a way the clasp of two substances bound together, and under that word they cannot exist except joined. Moreover, the apostle prefers the inner man to be understood not so much as the soul but as the mind and disposition, that is, not the substance itself but the savour of the substance. For writing to the Ephesians that Christ dwells in the inner man, he signified that the Lord is to be admitted into the inner senses. Then he added, “through faith, in your hearts, and in love,” putting faith and love not as substantial parts of the soul but as its conceptions; but in saying “in hearts,” which are substantial parts of the flesh, he assigned to the flesh even the inner man itself, whom he placed in the heart. Look now at how he alleged that the outer man is being corrupted while the inner is renewed day by day, so that you do not affirm that corruption of the flesh which it suffers from the day of death, to fail forever, but rather that which in the span of this life, before death and up to death, it experiences through vexations and pressures, tortures and punishments, for the Name's sake. For the inner man too is to be renewed here, surely, advancing day by day in faith and discipline by the prompting of the Spirit; not there, that is, not after the resurrection, where we are not to be renewed day by day but once for all, completely. Learn from what follows: “For our present, temporary, and light affliction,” he says, “works for us, beyond all measure, an eternal weight of glory, as we look not at the things that are seen” (that is, sufferings) “but at the things that are not seen” (that is, rewards); “for the things that are seen are temporary, but the things that are not seen are eternal.” For the afflictions and injuries by which the outer man is corrupted he declares to be light and temporary and therefore to be despised, preferring the weight of eternal, invisible rewards and of glory as compensation for the labours by which the flesh here is corrupted in suffering. So that is not the corruption which they ascribe to the outer man as the perpetual destruction of the flesh, in order to expel the resurrection. So too elsewhere: “if indeed we suffer with him, so that we may also be glorified with him; for I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the future glory that is to be revealed in us.” Here too he shows the troubles to be smaller than their rewards. Now, if we suffer with him through the flesh, to which it properly belongs to be corrupted by sufferings, what is promised for suffering with him will belong to the flesh as well. And so, intending to assign to the flesh the property of afflictions, as above, he says: “For when we had come into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest”; then, to give the soul too a share in the suffering: “afflicted in everything,” he says, “fightings without” (warring down the flesh, that is), “fear within” (afflicting the soul, that is). So even if the outer man is being corrupted, it is understood to be corrupted not as losing the resurrection but as enduring vexation, and that not without the inner man. So to be glorified together will belong to both, just as to suffer together. The fellowships of rewards must run parallel to the partnerships of labours.

### Scripture references

- 1 Cor 11:19: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Cor 4:16: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 3:16: allusion, high confidence
- Eph 3:17: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 4:17: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 4:18: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:17: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:18: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 7:5: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations and allusions: 1 Cor 11:19; 2 Cor 4:16–18; Eph 3:16–17; Rom 8:17–18; 2 Cor 7:5. “The Name” is the name of Christ, for which Christians were persecuted.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 40 (CSEL 47:82–85; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/35/#p-40).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 41

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/35/#p-41
- Source: CSEL 47:85–86
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Paul's promise of a heavenly house when the earthly tent is dissolved rewards the flesh that suffers; the wish to be “clothed over” belongs to those alive at Christ's coming, who will be changed without dying.

### Latin text

Eandem adhuc sententiam exequitur remunerationes uexationibus praeferens: scimus enim, inquit, quoniam etsi terrena domus nostri tabernaculi dissoluatur, habemus domum non manu factam aeternam in caelis, id est: pro hoc, quod dissoluetur caro nostra per passiones, domicilium consecuturi sumus in caelis. meminerat euangelicae definitionis: beati, qui persecutionem patiuntur propter iustitiam, quia illorum est regnum caelorum m. non tamen carnis restitutionem negauit, si.. compensationem mercedis opposuit, cum ipsi compensatio debeatur, cui dissolutio reputatur, scilicet carni. sed quia domum dixerat carnem, eleganter uoluit et in mercedis comparatione uocabulo domus uti, ipsi domui, quae dissoluetur per passio-nem, meliorem domum repromittens per resurrectionem. nam et dominus multas mansiones quasi domus apud patrem repromittit. quamquam et de domicilio mundi potest intellegi, quo dissoluto aeterna sedes repromittatur in caelis, quia et quae sequuntur ad carnem manifeste pertinentia ostendunt priora non ad carnem pertinere. diuisionem enim facit apostolus, cum subicit: nam et in hoc gemimus domicilium nostrum, quod de caelo est superindui desiderantes; siquidem exuti non nudi inueniemur, id est: ante uolumus superinduere uirtutem caelestem aeternitatis quam carne exuamur. huius enim gratiae priuilegium illos manet, qui ab aduentu domini deprehendentur in carne et propter duritias temporum antichristi merebuntur compendio mortis per demutationem expunctae concurrere cum resurgentibus, sicut Thesalonicensibus scribit: hoc enim dicimus uobis sermone domini, quod nos qui uiuimus, qui remanemus in aduentum domini, non praeueniemus eos, qui dormierunt, quoniam ipse dominus in iussu et uoce tubae dei descendet de caelo, et mortui in Christo resurgent primi; dehinc nos cum ipsis simul rapiemur in nubibus obuiam Christo et ita semper cum domino erimus.

### English translation (Claude)

He pursues the same thought still, preferring rewards to vexations: “For we know,” he says, “that if the earthly house of our tabernacle is dissolved, we have a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens”; that is, in return for our flesh being dissolved through sufferings, we shall obtain a dwelling in the heavens. He remembered the Gospel's definition: “Blessed are those who suffer persecution for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Yet he did not deny the restoration of the flesh if he set against its dissolution the compensation of reward, since the compensation is owed to that to which the dissolution is charged, namely the flesh. But since he had called the flesh a house, he elegantly chose to use the word “house” also in the comparison with the reward, promising to the house itself, which will be dissolved through suffering, a better house through the resurrection. For the Lord too promises many mansions, as houses, with the Father. Although it can also be understood of the dwelling of the world, on whose dissolution an eternal seat is promised in the heavens, since what follows, plainly referring to the flesh, shows that what precedes does not refer to the flesh. For the apostle makes a distinction when he adds: “For in this we groan, longing to be clothed over with our dwelling that is from heaven, since, having been stripped, we shall not be found naked”; that is, we wish to put on the heavenly power of eternity over us before we are stripped of the flesh. For the privilege of this grace awaits those who at the Lord's coming will be found in the flesh and, because of the harshness of the times of the antichrist, will deserve, by a shortcut of death accomplished through change, to join those who rise, as he writes to the Thessalonians: “For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who remain until the coming of the Lord, shall not go before those who have fallen asleep; for the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a command and the voice of the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first; then we together with them will be caught up in the clouds to meet Christ, and so we shall always be with the Lord.”

### Scripture references

- 2 Cor 5:1: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 5:10: quotation, high confidence
- John 14:2: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Cor 5:2: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 5:3: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Thess 4:15: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Thess 4:16: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Thess 4:17: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations and allusions: 2 Cor 5:1–3; Matt 5:10; John 14:2; 1 Thess 4:15–17.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 41 (CSEL 47:85–86; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/35/#p-41).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 42

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/35/#p-42
- Source: CSEL 47:86–88
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The change Paul promises, in which the mortal is swallowed up by life, requires that the flesh be present; the dead will receive their flesh back and then, like the living, be clothed with immortality.

### Latin text

Horum demutationem ad (omnes in prima ad) Corinthios reddit dicens: non omnes quidem resurgemus, omnes autem demutabimur, in atomo, in momentaneo motu oculi. in nouissima tuba. [sed illi scilicet soli, qui inuenientur in carne: et mortui, inquit, resurgent, nos demutabimur.] hac ergo prius positione perspecta reliqua reuocabis ad superiorem sensum. nam cum adicit: oportet etenim corruptiuum istud induere incorruptelam et mortale istud induere inmortalitatem, hoc erit illud domicilium de caelo, quod gementes in hac carne superinduere desideramus, utique super carnem in qua deprehendemur, quia grauari nos ait, qui simus in tabernaculo, quod nolimus exui sed potius superindui, uti deuoretur mortale a uita\\ scilicet dum demutatur superinduendo quod est de caelis. quis enim non desiderabit, dum in carne est, superinduere inmortalitatem et continuare uitam lucrifacta morte per uicariam demutationem, ne inferos experiatur usque nouissimum quadrantem exacturos? ceterum demutationem etiam post resurrectionem consecuturus est inferos iam expertus. abhinc enim definimus carnem omnimodo quidem [resurrecturam atque] illa ex demutatione superuentura habitum angelicum suscepturam. aut si in his solis, qui inuenientur in carne, demutari eam oportebit, ut deuoretur mortale a uita, id est caro ab illo superindumento caelesti aeterno: ergo qui mortui deprehendentur uitam non consequentur, priuati iam materia et, ut ita dixerim, esca uitae, id est carne, aut necesse est recipiant eam et illi, ut et in ipsis mortale deuorari possit a uita, si uitam sunt consecuturi. sed in mortuis, inquis, iam deuoratum erit mortale istud. non utique in omnibus. quantos enim licebit uel pridianos inueniri, tam recentia cadauera. ut nihil in illis deuoratum uideri possit? utique enim deuoratum non aliud existimas quam interceptum, quam abolitum, quam omni sensui ereptum, quod comparere omni genere cessauerit. nec gigantum autem antiquissima cadauera deuorata constabit, quorum crates adhuc uiuunt. diximus iam de isto alibi. sed et proxime in ista ciuitate cum odei fundamenta tot ueterum sepulturarum sacrilega conlocarentur, quingentorum fere annorum ossa adhuc succida et capillos olentes populus exhorruit. constat non tantum ossa durare uerum et dentes incorruptos perennare, quae ut semina retinentur fruticaturi corporis in resurrectione. postremo etsi tunc deuoratum inuenietur mortale in omnibus mortuis, certe a morte, certe ab aeuo, certe per aetatem, numquid a uita, numquid a superindumento, numquid ab inmortalitatis ingestu? porro qui ab his ait deuoratuiri mortale, ab aliis negauit. et utique hoc a diuinis uiribus, non a naturalibus legibus perfici praestarique conueniet. ergo cum a uita habeat deuorari quod mortale est, id exhiberi omnifariam necesse est, ut deuoretur, et deuorari, ut demutetur. si ignem dicas accendi oportere, non potes id, per quod accenditur, alibi necessarium adfirmare alibi non. sic et cum infulcit: siquidem exuti non inueniemur nudi, de eis scilicet, qui non in uita nec in carne deprehendentur a die domini, non alias negauit nudos quos praedixit exutos, nisi quia et reuestitos uoluit intellegi eadem substantia, qua fuerant spoliati. ut nudi enim inuenientur carne deposita uel ex parte discissa siue detrita, - et hoc enim nuditas potest dici — dehinc recipient eam, ut redinduti carnem fieri possint etiam superinduti inmortalitatem. superindui enim nisi uestito iam conuenire non poterit.

### English translation (Claude)

He explains the change of these, extended to all, in the first letter to the Corinthians, saying: “We shall not all rise, but we shall all be changed, in an atom, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.” Having first looked at this statement, you will refer the rest back to the earlier sense. For when he adds, “For this corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal put on immortality,” this will be that dwelling from heaven which, groaning in this flesh, we long to put on over it, over the flesh, that is, in which we shall be found; because he says that we who are in the tabernacle are burdened, since we do not wish to be stripped but rather to be clothed over, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life, while, that is, it is changed by putting on over it what is from the heavens. For who will not desire, while he is in the flesh, to put on immortality over it and to continue life, death being gained by a substitute change, so as not to experience the underworld, which will exact the last penny? But even he who has already experienced the underworld will obtain the change after the resurrection. For from this we define that the flesh will in every case take on the angelic condition from the change that will come upon it. Or if it must be changed only in those who will be found in the flesh, so that the mortal may be swallowed up by life, that is, the flesh by that heavenly and eternal over-garment, then those who are found dead will not obtain life, being already deprived of the material and, so to speak, the food of life, that is, the flesh; or else they too must receive it back, so that in them too the mortal can be swallowed up by life, if they are to obtain life. “But in the dead,” you say, “this mortal will already have been swallowed up.” Not in all, surely. For how many may be found who died only the day before, corpses so fresh that nothing in them can seem to have been swallowed up? For surely by “swallowed up” you mean nothing other than intercepted, abolished, snatched from every sense, what has ceased to appear in any way at all. Nor will the most ancient corpses of the giants be shown to have been swallowed up, whose frames still survive. We have spoken of this elsewhere. But recently too, in this very city, when the foundations of the Odeum were being laid sacrilegiously over so many old burials, the people shuddered at bones some five hundred years old still moist, and hair still smelling. It is agreed that not only do bones endure but teeth too last uncorrupted, which are kept as seeds of the body that will sprout in the resurrection. Finally, even if at that time the mortal is found swallowed up in all the dead, it will be swallowed up by death, surely, by time, by age: but is it by life, by the over-garment, by the putting on of immortality? Now, he who says the mortal will be swallowed up by these has denied that it will be by the others. And surely it will be fitting for this to be accomplished and effected by divine powers, not by natural laws. So since what is mortal is to be swallowed up by life, it must by all means be presented so that it may be swallowed up, and be swallowed up so that it may be changed. If you say that a fire must be kindled, you cannot affirm that what it is kindled with is necessary in one place and not in another. So too when he inserts, “since, having been stripped, we shall not be found naked” (of those, namely, who at the day of the Lord will be found not in life nor in the flesh), he denied that those whom he had spoken of as stripped would be naked only because he wished them to be understood as reclothed in the same substance of which they had been stripped. For they will be found naked when the flesh has been laid aside, or partly torn or worn away (for this too can be called nakedness); then they will receive it back, so that, reclothed with the flesh, they may also be clothed over with immortality. For being clothed over can only suit one who is already clothed.

### Scripture references

- 1 Cor 15:51: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:52: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:53: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 5:2: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Cor 5:3: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 5:4: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 5:26: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Tertullian, An. 51 (On the Soul): allusion, low confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations and allusions: 1 Cor 15:51–53; 2 Cor 5:2–4; Matt 5:26. Tertullian's Latin text of 1 Cor 15:51 reads “We shall not all rise, but we shall all be changed,” a known variant. The sentence “[sed illi scilicet soli, qui inuenientur in carne: et mortui, inquit, resurgent, nos demutabimur]” and the words “[resurrecturam atque]” are bracketed in the edition as deletions and left out. The giants' bones are discussed in On the Soul (ch. 51); the reference is probable. The Odeum is that of Carthage.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 42 (CSEL 47:86–88; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/35/#p-42).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 43

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/35/#p-43
- Source: CSEL 47:88–90
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Paul's longing to be away from the body and at home with the Lord speaks of a temporary absence, and the judgment of all “through the body” implies a bodily resurrection.

### Latin text

Proinde cum dicit: itaque confisi semper et scientes quod, cum inmoremur in corpore, peregrinemur a domino, per fidem enim incedimus, non per speciem, manifestum est hoc quoque non pertinere ad offuscationem carnis quasi separantis nos a domino. et hic enim exhortatio fastidiendae uitae huius obuertitur, siquidem peregrinamur a domino quamdiu uiuimus, per fidem incedentes, non per speciem, id est spe, non re. et ideo subiungit: fidentes autem et bonum ducentes magis peregrinari a corpore et inmorari ad dominum, scilicet ut per speciem magis incedamus quam per fidem, per rem potius quam per spem. uides quam et hic corporum contemptum ad martyriorum praestantiam referat. nemo enim peregrinatus a corpore statim inmoratur penes dominum, nisi ex martyrii praerogatiua, paradiso scilicet. non inferis, deuersurus. defecerant autem apostolo uerba ad significandum de corpore excessum? an ratione etiam noue loquitur? temporalem enim absentiam a corpore uolens significare peregrinari nos ab eo dixit, quoniam qui peregrinabitur etiam reuertetur in domicilium. exinde etiam ad omnes: gestimus, inquit, siue peregrinantes siue inmorantes placibiles deo esse: omnes enim manifestari nos oportet pro tribunali Christi Iesu. si omnes, et totos; si totos, et interiores et exteriores, id est tam animas quam et corpora: uti unusquisque, inquit, reportet quae per corpus secundum quae gessit, bonum siue malum. hoc iam quomodo legas quaero. quasi turbate enim per hyperbaton struxit. utrumne quae per corpus reportanda erunt an [quae per corpus] gesta sunt? sed et si [quae per corpus] reportanda sunt, corporalis indubitate resurrectio est. et si [quae per corpus] gesta sunt, per corpus utique pensanda sunt, per quod et gesta sunt. ita et totus hic a capite tractatus apostoli tali clausula detextus, qua carnis resurrectio ostenditur, secundum haec erit intellegendus, quae cum clausula consonant.

### English translation (Claude)

Likewise, when he says, “So we are always confident, knowing that while we dwell in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight,” it is plain that this too does not serve to darken the flesh as if it separated us from the Lord. For here too an exhortation to disdain this life is set before us, since we are away from the Lord as long as we live, walking by faith, not by sight, that is, in hope, not in reality. And so he adds: “But we are confident and think it better rather to be away from the body and at home with the Lord,” that is, so that we may walk by sight rather than by faith, in reality rather than in hope. You see how here too he refers contempt of bodies to the excellence of martyrdom. For no one who goes away from the body is at once at home with the Lord except by the privilege of martyrdom, lodging, that is, in paradise, not in the underworld. Had the apostle lacked words to signify departure from the body? Or does he speak unusually for a reason? Wishing to signify a temporary absence from the body, he said that we are away from it as travellers, since he who travels abroad will also return home. Then, of all: “We are eager,” he says, “whether away or at home, to be pleasing to God; for we must all be made manifest before the judgment seat of Christ Jesus.” If all, then whole; if whole, then both inner and outer, that is, souls as well as bodies: “so that each one,” he says, “may receive back through the body according to what he has done, whether good or bad.” How you read this, I now ask; for he has constructed it somewhat confusedly, by hyperbaton. Is it the things to be received back through the body, or the things done? But if they are to be received back through the body, the resurrection is beyond doubt bodily; and if it is the things done, they must surely be repaid through the body through which they were also done. So this whole treatment by the apostle from the beginning, woven to such a conclusion, by which the resurrection of the flesh is shown, must be understood in keeping with what agrees with the conclusion.

### Scripture references

- 2 Cor 5:6: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 5:7: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 5:8: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 5:9: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 5:10: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Tertullian, An. 55 (On the Soul): echo, low confidence

### Translation notes

- The quotations are 2 Cor 5:6–10. Tertullian holds that only martyrs go at once to paradise, while other souls wait in the underworld (cf. On the Soul 55). The words “[quae per corpus]”, bracketed three times in the edition as deletions, are left out; the sense is unaffected.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 43 (CSEL 47:88–90; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/35/#p-43).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 44

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/35/#p-44
- Source: CSEL 47:90–91
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The treasure of Christ's life carried in earthen vessels, and the life of Jesus to be manifested in our mortal body after death, show that the flesh will be raised like Christ's.

### Latin text

Si enim adhuc ad superiora respectes. unde mentio hominis exterioris et interioris inducta est, nonne et dignitatem et spem carnis integram inuenies? cum enim de lumine. quod inluxerit deus in cordibus nostris ad inluminationem agnitionis gloriae suae in persona Christi, dicit habere nos thesaurum istum in testaceis uasis, scilicet in carne: utrumne, quia testacea est secundum originem in limo, destruetur an. quia diuini thesauri conditorium est. extolletur? atquin si lumen ipsum illud uerum, quod est in persona Christi, uitam in se continet eaque uita cum lumine committitur in carnem, peritura est in quam uita committitur? plane sit. periturus (est> et ipse thesaurus? perituris enim peritura creduntur, sicut ueteribus utribus nouum uinum. cum item subicit: semper mortificationem Christi Iesu circumferentes in corpore nostro, qualis ista res est, quae post dei templum iam et sepulcrum Christi potest dici? cur autem mortificationem domini circumferimus in corpore? ut et uita, inquit, manifestetur. ubi? in corpore. in quo? in mortali. ergo in carne, plane mortali secundum culpam, sed et uitali secundum gratiam; uide quantam, ut in illa uita Christi manifestetur. in re ergo aliena salutis. in substantia perpetuae dissolutionis manifestabitur uita Christi aeterna iugis incorrupta. iam et dei uita? aut cuius temporis uita domini manifestabitur in corpore nostro? illa quidem. quam uixit usque in passionem, non modo apud Iudaeos in manifesto fuit uerum etiam omnibus nunc gentibus prodita est. adeo eam significat, quae portas adamantinas mortis et aeneas seras inferorum infregit, quae exinde iam nostra est. denique manifestabitur in corpore. quando? post mortem. quomodo? dum resurgimus in corpore, sicut et Christus. ne enim quis argumentetur nunc habere manifestari uitam Iesu in corpore nostro per disciplinam sanctitatis et patientiae et iustitiae et sapientiae, quibus domini uita floruerit, prouidentissima apostoli intentio ingerit: si enim nos. qui uiuimus, in mortem tradimur propter Iesum, et uita eius manifestetur in corpore nostro mortali. adeo defunctis nobis hoc ait futurum in corpore nostro. quodsi tunc, quomodo nisi resuscitato. eo? proinde et in clausula: scientes, ait, quod qui suscitauit Iesum et nos suscitabit cum ipso, quia iam resurrexerit a mortuis, nisi quia cum ipso sicut ipsum sapit; si uero sicut ipsum, non utique sine carne.

### English translation (Claude)

If you look back further to the earlier verses, from which the mention of the outer and inner man was introduced, will you not find both the dignity and the hope of the flesh intact? For when, speaking of the light that God has made shine in our hearts for the illumination of the knowledge of his glory in the face of Christ, he says that we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that is, in the flesh: will the flesh be destroyed because it is earthenware by its origin in clay, or exalted because it is the storehouse of a divine treasure? And indeed, if that true light itself, which is in the person of Christ, contains life in itself, and that life together with the light is entrusted to the flesh, is that to which life is entrusted to perish? Suppose so: is the treasure itself to perish too? For perishable things are entrusted to perishable things, like new wine to old wineskins. Likewise, when he adds, “always carrying about in our body the dying of Christ Jesus,” what sort of thing is this which, after being the temple of God, can now be called the tomb of Christ as well? And why do we carry about the dying of the Lord in the body? “So that the life too,” he says, “may be manifested.” Where? “In the body.” In what body? “In the mortal.” In the flesh, then: mortal indeed through guilt, but living through grace; see how great a grace, that the life of Christ should be manifested in it! In a thing foreign to salvation, then, in a substance of perpetual dissolution, will the life of Christ be manifested, eternal, unbroken, incorrupt, the very life of God? Or of what time is the life of the Lord that will be manifested in our body? That which he lived up to his passion was not only open to view among the Jews but has now been published to all nations as well. So he means that life which broke the adamantine gates of death and the bronze bars of the underworld, and which thereafter is ours. In short, it will be manifested in the body. When? After death. How? When we rise in the body, as Christ did. For lest anyone argue that the life of Jesus is to be manifested in our body now, through the discipline of holiness, patience, righteousness, and wisdom in which the Lord's life flourished, the apostle's most provident purpose adds: “For if we who live are delivered to death for Jesus' sake, so that his life too may be manifested in our mortal body.” So he says that this will happen in our body when we are dead. And if then, how except in the body raised? So too in the conclusion: “knowing,” he says, “that he who raised Jesus will raise us also with him.” But he has already risen from the dead; so “with him” can only mean “like him”; and if like him, then surely not without flesh.

### Scripture references

- 2 Cor 4:6: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Cor 4:7: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 9:17: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Cor 4:10: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 4:11: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 3:16: allusion, medium confidence
- Ps 107:16 (106:16 LXX; 106:16 Vulg.): allusion, medium confidence
- Isa 45:2: allusion, medium confidence
- 2 Cor 4:14: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations and allusions: 2 Cor 4:6–7, 10–11, 14; Matt 9:17; 1 Cor 3:16; Ps 107:16 (106:16 LXX/Vulg.) and Isa 45:2 (the gates and bars broken).

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 44 (CSEL 47:90–91; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/35/#p-44).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 45

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/35/#p-45
- Source: CSEL 47:91–93
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The “old man” and “new man” are not flesh and soul but the former and the renewed way of life; Paul condemns sinful works, not the body.

### Latin text

Sed et rursus alia caecitate in duos homines impingunt. in ueterem et in nouum, monente apostolo deponere nos ueterem hominem, qui corrumpitur per concupiscentiam seductionis, renouari autem spiritu sensus et induere nouum hominem, qui secundum deum conditus est in iustitia et religione ueritatis, ut et hic ad duas substantias distinguendo, uetustatem ad carnem, nouitatem ad animam, corruptionem perpetuam ueteri defendant, id est carni. porro si secundum substantias, nec anima (ideo) nouus homo, quia posterior, nec caro ideo uetus, quia prior. quantulum enim temporis inter manum dei et adflatum? ausim dicere: etiam si multo prior anima caro, eo ipso, quod anima impleri se expectauit, priorem eam fecit. omnis enim consummatio atque perfectio, etsi ordine postumat, effectu anticipat. magis illud prius est, sine quo priora non possunt. si caro uetus homo, quando istud? a primordio? atquin Adam nouus totus, et ex nouo uetus nemo. nam et exinde a benedictione geniturae caro atque anima simul fiunt sine calculo temporis, ut quae simul in utero etiam seminantur, quod docuimus in commentario animae. contemporant fetu, coaetant natu. duo isti homines, sane ex substantia duplici, non tamen et aetate, sic unum eduntur, dum prior neuter. rectius est totos nos aut ueteres aut nouos esse; qua enim (unum et) alterum possimus esse, nescimus. sed apostolus ueterem hominem manifeste notat. expone enim, inquit, secundum pristinam conuersationem ueterem hominem, non secundum alicuius substantiae senium. neque enim carnem praecipit deponamus sed quae et alibi carnalia ostendit, opera, non corpora accusans, de quibus et hic subicit: deponentes mendacium loquimini ueritatem unusquisque ad proximum suum, quoniam membra alterutrum sumus. irascimini autem et nolite delinquere. sol non occidat super iracundiam uestram. neque dederitis diabolo locum. qui furabatur, iam non furetur, immo potius laboret operando manibus, uti habeat impertire indigenti. omnis sermo turpis non procedat ex ore uestro, sed qui sit optimus ad aedificationem fidei, ut gratiam audientibus praestet. et nolite contristare spiritum dei sanctum, in quo signati estis in redemptionis die. omnis amaritudo et ira et clamor et blasphemia auferatur a uobis cum omni malitia. estote autem in alterutrum benigni misericordes donantes inuicem, sicut et deus uobis donauit in Christo. igitur qui carnem ueterem hominem existimant, cur non mortem sibi properant, ut uetere homine deposito praeceptis apostoli occurrant? nos enim, qui totam fidem in carne administrandam credimus, immo et per carnem, cuius est et os ad proferendum optimum quemque sermonem et lingua ad non blasphemandum et cor ad non indignandum et manus ad operandum et largiendum, tam uetustatem hominis quam nouitatem ad moralem, non ad substantialem. differentiam pertinere defendimus. atque ita pariter agnoscimus hominem, qui secundum pristinam conuersationem uetus fuerit, eundem et corrumpi ita dictum secundum concupiscentiam seductionis, quemadmodum et ueterem secundum pristinam conuersationem, non secundum carnem per interitum perpetuum. ceterum carne tam saluum quam eundem, utpote uitiosam disciplinam, non corpulentiam, exutum.

### English translation (Claude)

But again, with another blindness, they stumble on two men, the old and the new, since the apostle warns us to put off the old man, who is corrupted through deceitful desire, and to be renewed in the spirit of the mind and to put on the new man, who is created according to God in righteousness and the holiness of truth; so that here too, dividing them between the two substances, the oldness to the flesh and the newness to the soul, they maintain perpetual corruption for the old, that is, the flesh. But if it goes by substances, neither is the soul the new man because it came later, nor the flesh old because it came first. For how little time was there between God's hand and his breath? I would venture to say: even if the flesh was long prior to the soul, by the very fact that it waited to be filled by the soul, it made the soul prior. For every completion and perfection, though later in order, comes first in effect. That is more truly prior without which the prior things cannot be. If the flesh is the old man, since when? From the beginning? But Adam was wholly new, and no one is old from new. And from then on, from the blessing of generation, flesh and soul come to be together without reckoning of time, since they are also sown together in the womb, as we have taught in the treatise on the soul. They are contemporaries in the embryo, coeval at birth. These two men, of a double substance indeed, but not of a double age, are brought forth as one, since neither is prior. It is more correct that we are wholly either old or new; for how we could be one and the other we do not know. But the apostle clearly marks what the old man is: “Put off,” he says, “according to your former way of life, the old man”; not according to the age of some substance. For he does not command us to put off the flesh, but what he elsewhere too shows to be carnal, accusing works, not bodies, of which he adds here: “Putting away lying, speak the truth each to his neighbour, since we are members of one another. Be angry and do not sin. Let not the sun set on your anger, and give no place to the devil. Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labour, working with his hands, so that he may have something to share with the needy. Let no foul word come out of your mouth, but only what is best for the building up of faith, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and clamour and blasphemy be taken away from you, with all malice. But be kind to one another, merciful, forgiving one another, as God also has forgiven you in Christ.” So those who think the flesh the old man, why do they not hasten their own death, so that by putting off the old man they may fulfil the apostle's commands? For we, who believe that the whole faith is to be carried out in the flesh, indeed through the flesh, to which belong the mouth for bringing forth all the best speech, the tongue for not blaspheming, the heart for not being indignant, and the hands for working and giving, maintain that both the oldness and the newness of man belong to a moral, not a substantial, difference. And so we likewise acknowledge that the man who was old according to his former way of life is the same one who is said to be corrupted according to deceitful desire, just as he is called old according to his former way of life, not according to the flesh through perpetual destruction. For the rest, he is safe in the flesh and the same man, having put off his vicious rule of life, not his bodiliness.

### Scripture references

- Eph 4:22: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 4:23: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 4:24: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 4:25: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 4:26: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 4:27: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 4:28: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 4:29: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 4:30: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 4:31: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 4:32: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Tertullian, An. 27 (On the Soul): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The quotations are Eph 4:22–32. The treatise on the soul is Tertullian's On the Soul (ch. 27, on the simultaneous origin of body and soul). “(ideo)” and “(unum et)” are the edition's supplements.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 45 (CSEL 47:91–93; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/35/#p-45).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 46

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/46/#p-46
- Source: CSEL 47:93–95
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: In Romans 8 Paul condemns the works and mind of the flesh, not the flesh itself, and promises that God will raise our mortal bodies through his indwelling Spirit.

### Latin text

Talem ubique apostolum recognoscas. ita carnis opera damnantem. ut carnem damnare uideatur, sed, ne ita quis existimet, ex aliorum uel cohaerentium sensuum -suggestu procurantem. nam et dicens eos, qui in carne sint. deo placere non posse statim de prauo intellectu ad integrum reuocat adiciens: uos autem non estis in carne sed in spiritu. eos enim, quos in carne esse constabat, negando - in carne esse in operibus carnis non esse monstrabat, atque ita illos demum deo placere non posse, non qui in carne essent, sed qui carnaliter uiuerent, placere autem deo illos, qui in carne positi secundum spiritum incederent. et rursus corpus quidem ait mortuum, sed propter delinquentiam, sicut spiritum uitam propter iustitiam. uitam autem morti opponens in carne constitutae sine dubio illic et uitam repromisit ex iustitia, ubi mortem determinauit ex delinquentia. ceterum frustra opposuit uitam morti, (si) non est illic, ubi est et ipsa, cui eam opposuit. excludendae utique de corpore. porro si uita mortem de corpore excludit, non potest id perficere nisi illuc penetret, ubi est quod excludit. et quid ego nodosius, cum apostolus absolutius? si enim, inquit, spiritus eius, qui suscitauit Iesum, habitat in uobis, qui suscitauit Iesum a mortuis suscitabit et mortalia corpora uestra propter inhabitantem spiritum eius in uobis; ut et si animam quis corpus mortale praesumpserit. cum hoc et carnem negare non possit, carnis quoque resuscitationem cogatur agnoscere secundum eiusdem status communionem. ex sequentibus adhuc discas opera carnis damnari, non ipsam: itaque, fratres, ait, debitores sumus non carni ad uiuendum <secundum carnem); si secundum carnem uixeritis, futurum est, ut moriamini, si uero spiritu carnis actus mortificaueritis, uiuetis. porro, ut ad singula quaeque respondeam, si in carne constitutis, secundum spiritum tamen degentibus. salus repromittitur, iam non caro aduersatur saluti, sed operatio carnis. operatione autem carnis exclusa, quae causa est mortis, salua iam caro ostenditur, causa carens mortis. lex enim, inquit, spiritus uitae in Christo Iesu manumisit me a lege delinquentiae et mortis, certe quam praemisit habitare in membris nostris. ergo iam membra nostra legi mortis non tenebuntur, quia nec delinquentiae, a quibus manumissa sunt. quod enim inualidum erat legis, in quo infirmabatur per carnem, misso deus filio suo in simulacro carnis delinquentiae et per delinquentiam, damnauit delinquentiam in carne, non carnem in delinquentia; neque enim domus cum habitatore damnabitur. habitare enim peccatum dixit in corpore nostro. damnata autem delinquentia caro absoluta est, sicut indemnata ea legi mortis et delinquentiae obstricta est. sic etsi sensum carnis mortem appellauit, dehinc et inimicitiam ad deum, sed non carnem ipsam. cui ergo, dices, reputabitur sensus carnis, si non substantiae ipsi? plane, si probaueris aliquid carnem de suo sapere. si uero sine anima nullius est sensus, intellege sensum carnis ad animam esse referendum, carni interdum deputatum, quia propter carnem et per carnem administratur. et ideo habitare ait delinquentiam in carne, quia et anima, a qua delinquentia inducitur, inquilina est carnis, mortificatae quidem, sed non suo uerum delinquentiae nomine. nam et alibi: quomodo, inquit, etiam nunc uelut uiuentes in mundo sententiam fertis? non ad mortuos scribens, sed ad eos, qui desinere deberent mundialiter uiuere.

### English translation (Claude)

Recognize the apostle to be like this everywhere: condemning the works of the flesh in such a way that he seems to condemn the flesh, but taking care, lest anyone think so, through the prompting of other or adjoining statements. For in saying that those who are in the flesh cannot please God, he at once calls it back from a wrong understanding to a sound one by adding: “But you are not in the flesh but in the spirit.” For by denying that those who plainly were in the flesh were in the flesh, he showed that they were not in the works of the flesh; and so those cannot please God, not who are in the flesh, but who live carnally; while those please God who, placed in the flesh, walk according to the spirit. And again he says that the body is dead, but because of sin, just as the spirit is life because of righteousness. And setting life against the death established in the flesh, he without doubt promised life from righteousness in the very place where he fixed death from sin. Otherwise he would have set life against death in vain, if it is not there where that death is to which he opposed it, which must surely be driven out of the body. Now, if life drives death out of the body, it cannot do so without entering where that is which it drives out. But why am I more knotty when the apostle is more straightforward? “For if,” he says, “the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Jesus from the dead will also raise your mortal bodies, because of his Spirit dwelling in you”; so that even if someone presumes the soul to be the mortal body, since he cannot deny that the flesh is so too, he is forced to acknowledge the raising of the flesh as well, by fellowship in the same condition. From what follows you may learn further that the works of the flesh are condemned, not the flesh itself: “So, brothers,” he says, “we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh; for if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the flesh, you will live.” Now, to answer point by point: if salvation is promised to those set in the flesh but living according to the spirit, it is no longer the flesh that is opposed to salvation, but the working of the flesh. And when the working of the flesh, which is the cause of death, is removed, the flesh is shown to be safe, lacking the cause of death. “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,” he says, “has set me free from the law of sin and death”: the law, surely, which he said before dwells in our members. So our members will no longer be held by the law of death, since they are no longer held by that of sin, from which they have been set free. “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin, and through sin, condemned sin in the flesh”: not the flesh in sin; for the house will not be condemned with its inhabitant. For he said that sin dwells in our body. But when sin is condemned, the flesh is acquitted, just as, while sin was uncondemned, the flesh was bound to the law of death and sin. So even if he called the mind of the flesh death, and then enmity toward God, he did not so call the flesh itself. “To what, then,” you will say, “will the mind of the flesh be charged, if not to the substance itself?” To it, certainly, if you prove that the flesh has any mind of its own. But if without the soul it has no sensation, understand that the mind of the flesh is to be referred to the soul, though sometimes assigned to the flesh because it is carried on for the flesh's sake and through the flesh. And therefore he says that sin dwells in the flesh, because the soul too, by which sin is brought in, is the flesh's lodger; the flesh is put to death, indeed, but not in its own name, rather in that of sin. For elsewhere too he says: “How is it that even now, as though living in the world, you pass judgment?” writing not to the dead, but to those who ought to cease living in a worldly way.

### Scripture references

- Rom 8:8: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:9: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:10: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 8:11: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:12: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:13: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:2: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 7:23: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 8:3: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 7:17: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 8:6: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 8:7: allusion, high confidence
- Col 2:20: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations and allusions: Rom 8:8–13; Rom 8:2–3, 6–7; Rom 7:17–23; Col 2:20. The digital text's “legum a mor. tuis” is corrected to “Iesum a mortuis”, and the doubled “appellauitlauit” to “appellauit”.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 46 (CSEL 47:93–95; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/46/#p-46).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 47

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/46/#p-47
- Source: CSEL 47:95–98
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The old man crucified with Christ is sinful conduct, not the body; Paul promises the members of the body sanctification and eternal life, and baptism in the flesh points to its resurrection.

### Latin text

Haec enim erit uita mundialis, quam ueterem hominem dicit confixum [esse] Christo, non corporalitatem. sed moralitatem] ceterum si non ita accipimus, non est corporalitas nostra confixa nec crucem Christi caro nostra perpessa est, sed quemadmodum adiecit: uti euacuetur corpus delinquentiae, per emendationem uitae, non per interitum substantiae, sicut ait. uti hactenus delinquentiae seruiamus et ut hac ratione commortui Christo credamus, quod etiam conuiuemus ill?. sic enim, inquit, et uos reputate mortuos quidem uos. cuinam? carni? non, sed delinquentiae. ergo salui erunt carni, uiuentes autem deo in Christo Iesu, per carnem utique, cui mortui non erunt, delinquentiae scilicet mortui, non carni. nam et adhuc ingerit: ne ergo regnauerit in corpore uestro mortali delinquentia ad obaudiendum illi et ad exhibendum membra uestra arma iniustitiae delinquentiae: sed exhibete uosmet ipsos deo uelut ex mortuis uiuos, — non uelut uiuos, sed uelut ex mortuis uiuos — et membra uestra arma iustitiae. et rursus: sicut exhibuistis membra uestra famula inmunditiae et iniquitatis ad iniquitatem, ita et nunc exhibete membra uestra famula iustitiae in sanctificium; cum enim serui essetis delinquentiae, liberi eratis iustitiae. quem ergo fructum habebatis super his, de quibus nunc confundimini? finis enim illorum mors. nunc uero liberi facti a delinquentia, famulati autem deo, habetis fructum uestrum in sanctificium. finem autem uitam aeternam. stipendia enim delinquentiae mors, donatiuum autem dei uita aeterna in Christo Iesu, domino nostro. ita per totam hanc sensuum seriem ab iniustitia et delinquentia membra nostra diuellens et iustitiae et sanctimoniae adiungens et transferens eadem a stipendio mortis ad donatiuum uitae aeternae, carni utique compensationem salutis repromittit, cui nullam omnino competisset imperari propriam sanctimoniae et iustitiae disciplinam, si non ipsius esset et praemium disciplinae, sed nec ipsum baptisma committi, si per regenerationem non etiam restitutioni inauguraretur, hoc quoque apostolo ingerente: an ignoratis, quod quicumque in Iesum tincti sumus, in mortem eius tincti sumus? consepulti ergo illi sumus per baptisma in mortem, uti, quemadmodum surrexit Christus a mortuis, ita et nos in nouitate uitae incedamus. ac ne de ista tantum uita putes dictum, quae ex fide per baptisma in nouitate uiuenda est, prouidentissime adstruit: si enim consati fuerimus simulacro mortis Christi, ita et resurrectionis erimus. per simulacrum enim morimur in baptismate, sed per ueritatem resurgimus in carne, sicut et Christus, ut, sicut regnauit in morte delictum, ita et gratia regnet per iustitiam in uitam sempiternam per Iesum Christum dominum nostrum. quomodo ita, si non aeque in carne? ubi enim mors, ibi et uita post mortem, quia et uita ibi ante, ubi postea mors. nam si regnum mortis nihil operatur quam carnis dissolutionem, proinde uitam contrariam morti contrarium oportet operari, id est carnis redintegrationem, uti, sicut deuorauerat mors inualescendo mortale, ita et deuorata ab inmortalitate audire possit: ubi est, mors, aculeus tuus? ubi est, mors, contentio tua? sic enim et gratia illic superabundabit, ubi et iniquitas abundauit; sic et uirtus in infirmitate perficietur, quod periit saluum faciens, quod mortuum est uiuificans, quod percussum est sanans, quod languit medicans, quod ereptum est redimens. quod famulatum est liberans, quod seductum est reuocans, quod elisum est suscitans; et quidem de terra in caelum, ubi nostrum municipatum Philipenses quoque ab apostolo discunt, unde et salutificatorem nostrum expectamus Iesum Christum, qui transfigurabit corpus nostrae humilitatis conformale corpori gloriae suae, sine dubio post resurrectionem, quia nec ipse Christus glorificatus est ante passionem. haec erunt corpora nostra, quae Romanos obsecrat exhibere hostiam uiuam sanctam placibilem deo. quomodo uiuam, si peritura sunt? quomodo sanctam, si profana sunt? quomodo placibilem, si damnata sunt? age iam, quod ad Thesalonicenses ipsius solis radio putem scriptum, — ita claret, — qualiter accipient lucifugae isti scripturarum: ipse autem deus pacis sanctificet uos totos? non sufficit? sed sequitur: et integrum corpus uestrum et anima et spiritus sine querela conseruentur in praesentia domini. habes omnem substantiam hominis saluti destinatam, nec alio tempore quam in aduentu domini, qui clauis est resurrectionis.

### English translation (Claude)

For this will be the worldly life which he calls the old man crucified with Christ: not bodiliness, but conduct. Otherwise, if we do not take it so, our bodiliness has not been crucified, nor has our flesh suffered the cross of Christ; but, as he added, “that the body of sin may be done away with,” by amendment of life, not by destruction of substance, as he says, “so that we may no longer serve sin,” and that on this account, having died with Christ, we may believe that we shall also live with him. “So you too,” he says, “reckon yourselves dead.” To what? To the flesh? No, but to sin. So they will be safe as to the flesh, “but alive to God in Christ Jesus”: through the flesh, surely, to which they will not be dead, being dead to sin, not to the flesh. For he presses further: “Let not sin, then, reign in your mortal body, so that you obey it and present your members to sin as weapons of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as living from the dead” (not as living, but as living from the dead) “and your members as weapons of righteousness.” And again: “As you presented your members as slaves to uncleanness and iniquity for iniquity, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness for sanctification; for when you were slaves of sin, you were free from righteousness. What fruit, then, did you have from the things of which you are now ashamed? For their end is death. But now, having been set free from sin and become slaves of God, you have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” So throughout this whole series of statements, tearing our members away from unrighteousness and sin and joining them to righteousness and holiness, and transferring them from the wages of death to the gift of eternal life, he surely promises the flesh the recompense of salvation. It would not have been fitting at all to command it to keep a discipline of holiness and righteousness of its own, if the reward of the discipline were not also its own; nor even to entrust baptism itself to it, if through regeneration it were not also being consecrated for restoration. The apostle presses this too: “Or do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried with him, then, through baptism into death, so that, as Christ rose from the dead, so we too may walk in newness of life.” And lest you think this said only of this life, which is to be lived in newness from faith through baptism, he most providently adds: “For if we have been planted together in the likeness of Christ's death, so shall we be also of his resurrection.” For in baptism we die through a likeness, but we rise in reality in the flesh, as Christ did too, “so that, as sin reigned in death, so grace also may reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” How so, if not equally in the flesh? For where death is, there too is life after death, because where death came afterwards there was life before. For if the reign of death works nothing but the dissolution of the flesh, then life, the contrary of death, must work the contrary, that is, the reintegration of the flesh; so that, as death by prevailing had swallowed up what is mortal, so it too, swallowed up by immortality, may hear: “Where, O death, is your sting? Where, O death, is your strife?” For so grace too will superabound where iniquity abounded; so too power will be made perfect in weakness, saving what was lost, making alive what was dead, healing what was struck, curing what languished, redeeming what was snatched away, freeing what was enslaved, calling back what was led astray, raising what was dashed down; and indeed from earth to heaven, where the Philippians too learn from the apostle that our citizenship is, “from which also we await our Saviour, Jesus Christ, who will transform the body of our humiliation to be conformed to the body of his glory”: without doubt after the resurrection, since Christ himself too was not glorified before his passion. These will be our bodies which he beseeches the Romans to present as a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing to God. How living, if they are to perish? How holy, if they are profane? How pleasing, if they are condemned? Come now, how will these people who flee the light of the Scriptures take what was written to the Thessalonians, which I would think written with a ray of the sun itself, so bright it is: “May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly”? Is that not enough? But it goes on: “and may your whole body and soul and spirit be kept blameless at the coming of the Lord.” You have the whole substance of man destined for salvation, and at no other time than at the coming of the Lord, which is the key of the resurrection.

### Scripture references

- Rom 6:6: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 6:8: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 6:11: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 6:12: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 6:13: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 6:19: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 6:20: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 6:21: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 6:22: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 6:23: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 6:3: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 6:4: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 6:5: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 5:21: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:54: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:55: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 5:20: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Cor 12:9: allusion, high confidence
- Phil 3:20: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 3:21: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 12:1: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Thess 5:23: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Rom 6:6, 8, 11–13, 19–23; Rom 6:3–5; Rom 5:21; 1 Cor 15:54–55; Rom 5:20; 2 Cor 12:9; Phil 3:20–21; Rom 12:1; 1 Thess 5:23. “Baptized” renders Tertullian's “tincti” (literally “dipped”). “[esse]”, bracketed in the edition as a deletion, is left out, and a stray closing bracket after “moralitatem” is ignored. The digital text's “legum Christum” is corrected to “Iesum Christum”.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 47 (CSEL 47:95–98; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/46/#p-47).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 48

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/46/#p-48
- Source: CSEL 47:98–101
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Before turning to “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom,” Tertullian shows that 1 Corinthians 15 models our resurrection on Christ's bodily resurrection and assumes that bodies will rise.

### Latin text

Sed caro, inquis, et sanguis regnum dei hereditati possidere non possunt. scimus hoc quoque scriptum. sed de industria distulimus hucusque, ut quod aduersarii in prima statim acie obstruunt, in ultima congressione prosterneremus, omnibus quaestionibus quasi auxiliis eius ante deiectis. sed et nunc expediet praecedentia recognosci, ut et huic sensui sua origo praeiudicet. ut opinor, apostolus disposita ad Corinthios omni distinctione ecclesiasticae disciplinae summam et sui euangelii et fidei illorum in dominicae mortis et resurrectionis demandatione concluserat, ut et nostrae spei regulam inde deduceret, unde constaret. itaque subicit: si autem Christus praedicatur quod a mortuis resurrexerit. quomodo quidam dicunt in uobis resurrectionem mortuorum non esse? quae si non est, nec Christus resurrexit. si Christus non resurrexit, inanis est praedicatio nostra, uacua est fides nostra. inueniemur enim falsi testes dei, qui testimonium dixerimus, quod resuscitauerit Christum, quem non resuscitauit. nam si mortui non resurgunt, nec Christus resurrexit. si Christus non resurrexit, uana est fides uestra, quia adhuc in delictis uestris estis, et qui in Christo dormierunt perierunt. per haec cui nos rei credendae uidetur extruere? resurrectioni, inquis, mortuorum, quae negabatur. certe sub exemplo dominicae resurrectionis uolens eam credi. certe, inquis. exemplum porro ex diuersitate an ex parilitate componitur? utique, inquis, ex parilitate. quomodo autem Christus resurrexit? in carne an non? sine dubio, si mortuum, si sepultum audis secundum scripturas non alias quam in carne, aeque resuscitatum in carne concedes. ipsum enim, quod cecidit in morte, quod iacuit in sepultura, hoc et resurrexit, non tam Christus in carne quam caro in Christo. igitur si ad exemplum Christi resurgemus. qui resurrexit in carne, iam non ad exemplum Christi resurgemus, si non in carne et ipsi resurgemus: quia per hominem, inquit, mors, et per hominem resurrectio, ut separaret quidem auctores, mortis Adam, Christum resurrectionis, eiusdem autem constitueret substantiae resurrectionem, cuius et mortem, per ipsorum auctorum in nomine hominis comparationem. si enim sicut in Adam omnes moriuntur, ita et in Christo omnes uiuificabuntur, carne uiuificabuntur in Christo, sicut in Adam carne moriuntur. unusquisque autem in suo ordine, scilicet quia et in suo corpore. ordo enim meritorum [dispositorum] nomine disponetur. menta autem cum corpori quoque quoque, ordo quoque corporum disponatur necesse est, ut possit esse meritorum. si autem et baptizantur quidam pro mortuis, uidebimus an ratione. certe illa praesumptione hoc eos instituisse portendit, qua alii etiam carni [ut] uicarium baptisma profuturum existimarent ad spem resurrectionis, quae non nisi corporalis [non nisi alias] in baptismate corporali obligaretur. quid et ipsos baptizari ait, id est** si non quae baptizantur corpora resurgunt? anima enim non lauatione. sed responsione sancitur. quid et nos, inquit, omni hora periclitamur? utique per carnem. cotidie morior; utique periculis carnis, per quam et depugnauit ad bestias Ephesi. illas scilicet bestias Asiaticae pressurae, de qua in secunda ad eosdem: nolumus enim uos ignorare, fratres, de pressura nostra apud Asiam, quod super quam supra grauati sumus citra uires, uti et de uita haesitaremus. omnia haec, nisi fallor, eo enumerat ut, nolens uanam credi carnis conflictationem, indubitate uelit credi carnis resurrectionem. uana enim habenda est conflictatio eius, cuius nulla erit resurrectio. sed dicet quis: quomodo resurgent mortui? quo autem corpore uenient? iam hic de qualitatibus corporum disserit, an eadem ipsa an alia resumantur. sed cum eiusmodi quaestio posterior habeatur! sufficiet interim ei hoc quoque corporalem definiri resurrectionem, cum de qualitate corporum quaeritur.

### English translation (Claude)

“But flesh and blood,” you say, “cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” We know that this too is written. But we have deliberately put it off until now, so that what our adversaries throw up at once in the front line we might overthrow in the last engagement, after all the questions, its auxiliaries as it were, had first been knocked down. But even now it will help to review what precedes, so that its origin may settle the sense of this too. The apostle, as I think, having set out for the Corinthians every point of church discipline, had summed up both his gospel and their faith in the commission of the Lord's death and resurrection, so as to derive the rule of our hope too from the point on which it rests. So he adds: “But if Christ is preached as having risen from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? And if there is none, neither has Christ risen. If Christ has not risen, our preaching is empty, our faith is vain. For we shall be found false witnesses of God, having testified that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise. For if the dead do not rise, neither has Christ risen. If Christ has not risen, your faith is vain, for you are still in your sins, and those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.” By these words, what does he seem to be building us up to believe? “The resurrection of the dead,” you say, “which was being denied.” Surely wishing it to be believed on the pattern of the Lord's resurrection. “Surely,” you say. Now, is a pattern made from difference or from likeness? “From likeness, of course,” you say. But how did Christ rise? In the flesh, or not? Without doubt, if you hear that he died and was buried according to the Scriptures in no other way than in the flesh, you will grant equally that he was raised in the flesh. For the very thing that fell in death, that lay in the tomb, is what also rose: not so much Christ in the flesh as the flesh in Christ. So if we shall rise after the pattern of Christ, who rose in the flesh, we shall not rise after the pattern of Christ if we too do not rise in the flesh: “because through a man,” he says, “came death, and through a man the resurrection,” so as to separate the authors, Adam of death, Christ of resurrection, but to establish that the resurrection is of the same substance as the death, by comparing the authors themselves under the name “man.” “For if as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive,” they will be made alive in Christ in the flesh, as in Adam they die in the flesh. “But each in his own order,” that is, because each in his own body too. For the order will be arranged by merits; and since merits are ascribed to the body as well, an order of bodies too must be arranged, so that there can be an order of merits. “But if some are also baptized for the dead,” we shall see whether with good reason. Certainly he indicates that they instituted this out of the presumption by which others thought that a vicarious baptism would benefit the flesh too for the hope of resurrection, which, unless it were bodily, would not be pledged in a bodily baptism. Why does he say that they themselves are baptized … if the bodies that are baptized do not rise? For the soul is consecrated not by the washing but by the answer. “Why,” he says, “are we too in danger every hour?” Through the flesh, surely. “I die daily”: in the perils of the flesh, surely, in which he also fought with beasts at Ephesus, those beasts, namely, of the affliction in Asia, of which he speaks in the second letter to the same: “For we do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, of our affliction in Asia, that we were weighed down beyond measure, beyond our strength, so that we despaired even of life.” All this, unless I am mistaken, he lists for this purpose: not wishing the struggles of the flesh to be thought vain, he wishes the resurrection of the flesh to be believed beyond doubt. For the struggle of that which will have no resurrection must be held vain. “But someone will say: How are the dead raised? And with what body will they come?” Here he now discusses the qualities of bodies, whether the very same are taken back or others. But since a question of that kind is held to be secondary, it will suffice meanwhile that the resurrection is defined as bodily by this too, that the question is about the quality of bodies.

### Scripture references

- 1 Cor 15:50: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:3: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:12: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:13: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:14: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:15: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:16: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:17: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:18: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:21: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:22: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:23: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:29: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:30: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:31: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:32: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Cor 1:8: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:35: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations and allusions: 1 Cor 15:50, 3–4, 12–18, 21–23, 29–32, 35; 2 Cor 1:8. The digital text here is damaged: “[dispositorum]” and “[ut]” and “[non nisi alias]” are bracketed in the edition as deletions and left out; “menta autem cum corpori quoque quoque” is corrupt, and the rendering “since merits are ascribed to the body as well” is conjectural; a gap (“**”) after “id est” is shown as “…”. The “answer” is the candidate's profession of faith at baptism.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 48 (CSEL 47:98–101; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/46/#p-48).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 49

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/46/#p-49
- Source: CSEL 47:101–103
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: In the context of 1 Corinthians 15, “flesh and blood” that cannot inherit the kingdom means the earthly way of life of the old Adam, not the substance of the body.

### Latin text

Ventum est nunc ad carnem et sanguinem, * reuera totius quaestionis. quas substantias quali condicione exheredauerit apostolus a dei regno, aeque de antecedentibus discere est. primus, inquit, homo de terra, choicus, id est limacius, id est Adam, secundus homo de caelo, id est sermo dei. id est Christus, non alias tamen homo, licet de caelo, nisi quia et ipse caro atque anima, quod homo, quod Adam. nam et si supra nouissimus Adam dicitur, de consortio substantiae commercium nominis traxit, quia nec Adam ex semine caro, quod et Christus. qualis ergo choicus, tales et choici, qualis caelestis, tales et caelestes. substantia tales an primo disciplina, dehinc et dignitate. quam disciplina captauit? atquin substantia nullo modo separabuntur choici atque caelestes semel ab apostolo homines dicti. si enim et Christus, solus uere caelestis, immo et supercaelestis, homo tamen, qua caro atque anima, nihilo ex ista substantiarum condicione a choica qualitate discernitur, proinde et qui caelestes secundum illum non de substantia praesenti sed de futura claritate caelestes praedicati intellegentur, quia et retro, — unde distinctio ista manauit — de dignitatis differentia ostensa est alia supercaelestium gloria, alia superterrenorum, et alia solis, alia lunae, alia stellarum, quia et stella a stella differt in gloria, non tamen in substantia. denique praemissa differentia dignitatis in eadem substantia et nunc sectandae et tunc capessendae subiungit etiam exhortationem, ut et hic habitum Christi sectemur ex disciplina et illic fastigium conse quamur ex gloria: sicut portauimus imaginem choici, portemus etiam imaginem supercaelestis. portauimus enim imaginem choici per collegium transgressionis, per consortium mortis, per exilium paradisi. nam si et in carne hic portatur imago Adae, sed non carnem monemur exponere: si non carnem, ergo conuersationem, ut proinde et caelestis imaginem gestemus in nobis, non iam dei nec iam in caelo constituti, sed secundum liniamenta Christi incedentes in sanctitate et iustitia et ueritate. atque adeo ad disciplinam totum hoc dirigit, ut hic dicat portandam imaginem Christi in ista carne et in isto tempore disciplinae. portemus enim praeceptiuo modo dicens huic tempori loquitur, in quo homo nulla alia substantia est quam caro et anima. aut etsi quam aliam, id est caelestem, substantiam haec fides spectat, hic tamen repromissa sit cui ad illam elaborare mandatur. cum igitur imaginem et choici et caelestis in conuersatione constituat, illam eierandam, hanc uero sectandam, dehinc adiungat: hoc enim dico, — id est propter ea, quae supra dixi; propterea autem coniunctio est sensus supplementum antecedentibus reddens — quod caro et sanguis regnum dei hereditate possidere non possunt, nihil aliud intellegi mandat carnem et sanguinem quam supra dictam imaginem choici. quae si in conuersatione censetur uetustatis, conuersatio autem uetustatis non capit dei regnum, proinde caro et sanguis non capiendo dei regnum ad conuersationem rediguntur uetustatis. plane si numquam apostolus pro operibus substantiam posuit, nec hic ita utatur. si uero in carne adhuc constitutos negauit esse in carne, in operibus carnis negans esse, formam eius subruere non debes, non substantiam sed opera substantiae alienantis a dei regno. quibus etiam ad Galatas manifestatis praedicere se et praedixisse profitetur, quod qui talia agant regnum dei non sint hereditate consecuturi, non portantes scilicet imaginem caelestis, sicut portauerant choici, ideoque ex uetere conuersatione nihil aliud deputandi quam caro et sanguis. quamquam et si subito in hanc definitionem erupisset apostolus, eliminandam carnem et sanguinem a dei regno, sine ullius supra sensus praestructione, nonne duas istas substantias proinde hominem ueterem interpretaremur carni et sanguini deditum, id est esui et potui, cuius sit dicere aduersus fidem resurrectionis: manducemus et bibamus, cras enim moriemur? et hoc enim infulciens apostolus, carnem et sanguinem de fructibus ipsorum manducandi et bibendi suggillauit.

### English translation (Claude)

We come now to flesh and blood, the real crux of the whole question. Under what condition the apostle has disinherited these substances from the kingdom of God is likewise to be learned from what precedes. “The first man,” he says, “is from the earth, earthy,” that is, of clay, that is, Adam; “the second man from heaven,” that is, the Word of God, that is, Christ; yet man in no other sense, though from heaven, than that he too is flesh and soul, which man is, which Adam is. For even if above he is called “the last Adam,” he drew the sharing of the name from the sharing of the substance, since Adam too was flesh not from seed, as Christ also was. “As is the earthy, so are the earthy; as is the heavenly, so are the heavenly.” Such in substance? Or first in discipline, then also in the dignity which discipline has won? For in substance the earthy and the heavenly, once called men by the apostle, will in no way be separated. For if Christ too, alone truly heavenly, indeed super-heavenly, yet man, as flesh and soul, is in no way distinguished by this condition of substances from the earthy quality, then likewise those who are heavenly after his pattern will be understood to be proclaimed heavenly not from their present substance but from their future glory; since earlier too, from where this distinction flowed, a difference of dignity was shown: one glory of the super-heavenly, another of the super-earthly, and one of the sun, another of the moon, another of the stars, since star differs from star in glory, yet not in substance. Finally, having first set out the difference of dignity in the same substance, to be pursued now and to be grasped then, he adds an exhortation too, that here we may pursue the character of Christ by discipline and there attain its height by glory: “As we have borne the image of the earthy, let us also bear the image of the super-heavenly.” For we have borne the image of the earthy through partnership in transgression, through fellowship in death, through exile from paradise. For even if the image of Adam is borne here in the flesh, yet we are not told to put off the flesh; if not the flesh, then the way of life, so that likewise we may bear the image of the heavenly in ourselves, not now of God, nor now set in heaven, but walking according to the lineaments of Christ in holiness and righteousness and truth. And indeed he directs all this to discipline, so that he says here that the image of Christ is to be borne in this flesh and in this time of discipline. For in saying “let us bear,” in the mood of command, he speaks to this time, in which man is no other substance than flesh and soul. Or even if this faith looks to some other, that is, heavenly, substance, still it is promised to that which is commanded here to labour toward it. Since, then, he places the image both of the earthy and of the heavenly in conduct, the one to be renounced and the other to be pursued, and then adds, “For this I say” (that is, because of what I said above; for “for” is a conjunction that completes the sense from what precedes) “that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,” he bids us understand by flesh and blood nothing other than the image of the earthy mentioned above. And if that image is reckoned in the conduct of oldness, and the conduct of oldness does not attain the kingdom of God, then flesh and blood, in not attaining the kingdom of God, are reduced to the conduct of oldness. Plainly, if the apostle has never put the substance for the works, let him not be taken to do so here either. But if he denied that those still set in the flesh were in the flesh, denying that they were in the works of the flesh, you ought not to overturn his pattern: it is not the substance but the works of the substance that estrange from the kingdom of God. Having set these works out plainly to the Galatians too, he declares that he forewarns and has forewarned that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God, not bearing, that is, the image of the heavenly as they had borne that of the earthy; and therefore, by their old way of life, they are to be reckoned nothing but flesh and blood. And yet even if the apostle had suddenly burst out with this definition, that flesh and blood are to be shut out of the kingdom of God, without any preparation of the sense beforehand, would we not likewise interpret these two substances as the old man given over to flesh and blood, that is, to eating and drinking, whose saying it is against faith in the resurrection: “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die”? For in inserting this too, the apostle rebuked flesh and blood by their fruits of eating and drinking.

### Scripture references

- 1 Cor 15:47: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:45: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:48: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:40: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:41: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:49: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:50: quotation, high confidence
- Gal 5:21: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:32: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations and allusions: 1 Cor 15:47–50, 45, 40–41; Gal 5:19–21; 1 Cor 15:32 (Isa 22:13). A gap in the digital text (“*”) before “reuera totius quaestionis” is supplied in sense as “the crux”. The digital text's “exhereda uerit” is corrected to “exheredauerit”, and “ei uetere” to “ex uetere”.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 49 (CSEL 47:101–103; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/46/#p-49).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 50

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/46/#p-50
- Source: CSEL 47:103–104
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Even taken literally, “flesh and blood” are denied the kingdom only on their own; all flesh will rise, and in the saved it will be changed and clothed with immortality so that it can inherit the kingdom.

### Latin text

Sed et omissis huiusmodi interpretationibus carnis et sanguinis opera taxantibus, ipsas quoque substantias non aliter quam sunt intellectas licebit resurrectioni uindicare. non enim resurrectio carni et sanguini directo negatur, sed dei regnum, quod obuenit resurrectioni — est autem et in iudicium resurrectio —, immo et confirmatur carnis resurrectio generalis, cum specialis excipitur. dum enim in quem statum non resurgat edicitur, in quem resurgat subauditur. atque ita, dum pro meritis distinctionem resurrectionis opus substantiae, non genus, patitur, apparet hinc quoque carnem et sanguinem nomine culpae, non substantiae, arceri a dei regno, nomine tamen formae resurgere in iudicium, quia non resurgant in regnum. adhuc dicam: caro et sanguis regnum dei hereditati possidere non possunt. t merito sola et per semetipsa, ut ostenderet adhuc spiritum illi necessarium. spiritus enim est qui uiuificat in regnum dei, caro nihil prodest. prodesse tamen illi aliud potest, id est spiritus, et per spiritum opera quoque spiritus. resurgunt itaque ex aequo omnis caro et sanguis in qualitate sua. sed quorum adire regnum dei, induere oportebit uim incorruptibilitatis et inmortalitatis, sine qua regnum dei adire non possunt, antequam consequi eam possint. merito ergo caro et sanguis, ut diximus, sola regnum dei capere deficiunt. iam uero, cum deuorari habeat corruptiuum istud ab incorruptibilitate, id est caro, et mortale istud ab inmortalitate, id est sanguis, post resurrectionem ex demutatione, merito demutata ac deuorata caro et sanguis regnum dei hereditate possidere possunt, non tamen non resuscitata. sunt, qui carnem et sanguinem Iudaismum uelint accipi propter circumcisionem, alienum et ipsum a dei regno, quia et ille uetustati deputetur et hoc titulo iam et alibi ab apostolo denotetur, qui post reuelatum in se filium dei ad euangelizandum eum in nationibus statim non retulerit ad carnem et sanguinem, id est ad circumcisionem, id est ad Iudaismum, sicut ad Galatas scribit.

### English translation (Claude)

But even setting aside interpretations of this kind, which censure the works of flesh and blood, we may claim for the resurrection the substances themselves, understood as nothing other than what they are. For it is not resurrection that is directly denied to flesh and blood, but the kingdom of God, which falls to the resurrection (for there is also a resurrection to judgment); indeed, the general resurrection of the flesh is confirmed when a particular one is excepted. For while it is declared to what state it does not rise, it is implied to what state it does rise. And so, since the distinction within the resurrection according to merits concerns the conduct of the substance, not its kind, it appears from this too that flesh and blood are kept from the kingdom of God on the ground of guilt, not of substance, yet rise to judgment on the ground of their nature, since they do not rise to the kingdom. I will say more: “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”; rightly, alone and by themselves, to show that the Spirit is still needed for them. For it is the Spirit that gives life for the kingdom of God; the flesh profits nothing. Yet something else can profit it, that is, the Spirit, and through the Spirit the works of the Spirit too. So all flesh and blood rise equally in their own quality. But those whose part it is to enter the kingdom of God will have to put on the power of incorruptibility and immortality, without which they cannot enter the kingdom of God, before they can obtain it. Rightly, then, as we have said, flesh and blood alone fail to attain the kingdom of God. But now, since this corruptible, that is, the flesh, is to be swallowed up by incorruptibility, and this mortal, that is, the blood, by immortality, after the resurrection, through change, then rightly flesh and blood, changed and swallowed up, can inherit the kingdom of God; yet not without being raised. There are some who would have flesh and blood taken as Judaism, because of circumcision, which is itself foreign to the kingdom of God, since it too is reckoned to oldness and is marked under this title by the apostle elsewhere as well, who, after the Son of God was revealed in him to be preached among the nations, did not at once refer to flesh and blood, that is, to circumcision, that is, to Judaism, as he writes to the Galatians.

### Scripture references

- 1 Cor 15:50: quotation, high confidence
- John 6:63: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:53: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:54: allusion, high confidence
- Gal 1:16: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations and allusions: 1 Cor 15:50, 53–54; John 6:63; Gal 1:16. A stray “t” in the digital text is ignored.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 50 (CSEL 47:103–104; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/46/#p-50).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 51

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/46/#p-51
- Source: CSEL 47:104–107
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Christ sits in heaven in the flesh as a pledge that ours will follow; Paul's “this corruptible” and “this mortal” point to the very flesh that must put on incorruption and immortality.

### Latin text

Sed pro omnibus iam stabit quod(in)clausulam reseruauimus, etiam pro apostolo ipso, reuera maximae inconsiderantiae reuincendo, si tam abrupte, ut quidam uolunt, clausis quod aiunt oculis, sine distinctione, sine condicione, omnem passim carnem et sanguinem a regno dei extrusit, utique et ab ipsa regia caelorum, cum illic adhuc sedeat Iesus ad dexteram patris, homo, etsi deus, Adam nouissimus, etsi sermo primarius, caro et sanguis, etsi nostris purior, idem tamen et substantia et forma quam ascendit, talis etiam descensurus, ut angeli adfirmant, agnoscendus scilicet eis, qui illum conuulnerauerunt. hic, sequester dei atque hominum appellatus ex utriusque partis deposito commisso sibi, carnis quoque depositum seruat in semetipso, arrabonem summae totius. quemadmodum enim nobis arrabonem spiritus reliquit, ita et a nobis arrabonem carnis accepit et uexit in caelum pignus totius summae illuc quandoque redigendae. securae estote, caro et sanguis, usurpastis et caelum et regnum dei in Christo. aut si negent uos in Christo, negent et in caelo Christum qui uobis caelum negauerunt. ita nec corruptela, inquit, incorruptelam hereditati habebit, non ut carnem et sanguinem existimes corruptelam, quando ipsa sint potius obnoxia corruptelae, per mortem scilicet, siquidem mors est, quae carnem et sanguinem non modo corrumpit uerum etiam consumit, sed, quoniam opera carnis et sanguinis non posse consequi regnum dei edixerat, quo magis hoc exaggeraret. ipsi quoque corruptelae, id est morti, cui carnis et sanguinis opera proficiunt, hereditatem incorruptelae ademit. nam et paulo post ipsius mortis quodammodo mortem expressit, deuorata est mors, dicens, in contentione. ubi est, mors, aculeus tuus? ubi est, mors, potentia tua? aculeus autem mortis delinquentia, haec erit corruptela, uirtus autem delinquentiae lex, illa alia sine dubio, quam constituit in membris suis militantem aduersus legem animi sui, ipsam scilicet uim delinquendi contra uoluntatem. nam et si supra nouissimum inimicum mortem euacuari ait, hoc modo nec corruptela hereditatem incorruptelae consequitur. id est nec mors perseuerabit. quando et quomodo defectura? cum in atomo, in momentaneo oculi motu, in nouissima tuba et mortui resurgent incorrupti, — qui hi, nisi qui ante corrupti, id est corpora, id est caro et sanguis? — et nos demutabimur; — de qua habitudine, nisi in qua deprehendemur? — oportet enim corruptiuum istud induere incorruptionem et mortale istud induere inmortalitatem. quid mortale, nisi caro? quid corruptiuum, nisi sanguis? ac ne putes aliud sentire apostolum, ** prouidentem tibi et, ut de carne dictum intellegas, laborantem: cum dicit istud corruptiuum et istud mortale, cutem ipsam tenens dicit. certe istud nisi de subiecto, nisi de comparenti, pronuntiasse non potuit. demonstrationis corporalis est uerbum. aliud autem erit corruptiuum, aliud corruptela, et aliud mortale, [etj aliud mortalitas. aliud enim quod patitur, aliud quod pati efficit. ita quae patiuntur corruptelam et mortalitatem, caro scilicet et sanguis, ea necesse est patiantur et incorruptelam et inmortalitatem.

### English translation (Claude)

But what we have reserved for the conclusion will now stand in place of everything, even on behalf of the apostle himself, who would truly be convicted of the greatest thoughtlessness if, as some would have it, he had so abruptly, with eyes shut, as they say, without distinction, without condition, thrust all flesh and blood indiscriminately out of the kingdom of God, and surely out of the very palace of heaven, when Jesus still sits there at the right hand of the Father: man, though God; the last Adam, though the primal Word; flesh and blood, though purer than ours; yet the same in substance and form as when he ascended, and such as he will also descend, as the angels affirm, to be recognized, namely, by those who pierced him. He, called the mediator between God and men, from the deposit of both parties entrusted to him, keeps in himself the deposit of the flesh too, the earnest of the whole sum. For as he left us the earnest of the Spirit, so he has received from us the earnest of the flesh and carried it into heaven as a pledge that the whole sum will one day be brought there. Be at peace, flesh and blood: you have taken possession of both heaven and the kingdom of God in Christ. Or if they deny that you are in Christ, let those who have denied you heaven deny that Christ is in heaven. “Nor will corruption,” he says, “inherit incorruption”: not so that you should think flesh and blood are corruption, since they are rather subject to corruption, through death, that is; for it is death that not only corrupts flesh and blood but consumes them. But since he had declared that the works of flesh and blood cannot obtain the kingdom of God, to heighten this he took away the inheritance of incorruption from corruption itself too, that is, from death, to which the works of flesh and blood lead. For a little later he also expressed, in a way, the death of death itself, saying: “Death has been swallowed up in strife. Where, O death, is your sting? Where, O death, is your power? The sting of death is sin” (this will be the corruption), “and the power of sin is the law”: that other law, without doubt, which he placed in his members, warring against the law of his mind, namely the very force of sinning against the will. For even if above he says that the last enemy, death, is to be abolished, in this way corruption does not obtain the inheritance of incorruption, that is, death will not last. When and how will it fail? When “in an atom, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet, the dead too will rise incorrupt” (who are these but those who were corrupted before, that is, bodies, that is, flesh and blood?) “and we shall be changed” (from what condition, if not the one in which we shall be found?); “for this corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal put on immortality.” What is mortal but the flesh? What is corruptible but the blood? And lest you think the apostle means something else …, providing for you and taking pains that you understand it as said of the flesh: when he says “this corruptible” and “this mortal,” he says it touching his own skin. Certainly he could not have said “this” except of something at hand, something visible. It is a word of bodily pointing. But the corruptible will be one thing, corruption another; the mortal one thing, mortality another. For that which suffers is one thing, that which makes it suffer another. So the things that suffer corruption and mortality, namely flesh and blood, must also undergo incorruption and immortality.

### Scripture references

- Acts 1:11: allusion, high confidence
- Zech 12:10: allusion, medium confidence
- 1 Tim 2:5: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Cor 1:22: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:45: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:50: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:54: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:55: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:56: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 7:23: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:26: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:52: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:53: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations and allusions: Acts 1:11; Zech 12:10 (cf. John 19:37); 1 Tim 2:5; 2 Cor 1:22 and 5:5 (the earnest of the Spirit); 1 Cor 15:45, 50, 52–56, 26; Rom 7:23. “In strife” renders in contentione (see ch. 54). A gap (“**”) in the digital text is shown as “…”; “[et]”, bracketed in the edition as a deletion (printed “[etj”), is left out. Christ's ascended flesh as the “earnest” (arrabo) of ours is a distinctive image of Tertullian's.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 51 (CSEL 47:104–107; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/46/#p-51).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 52

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/46/#p-52
- Source: CSEL 47:107–109
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Paul's image of the seed shows that the same flesh that is sown in death rises, clothed by God with a new glory, just as grain rises as the same kind of plant, fuller and adorned.

### Latin text

Videamus iam nunc, quo corpore uenturos mortuos disputet. et bene, quod erupit statim ostendere, quasi quia eiusmodi quaerat. stulte, inquit, tu; quod seminas non reuiuificatur, nisi mortuum fuerit. hoc ergo iam de exemplo seminis constet non aliam uiuificari carnem quam ipsam, quae erit mortua, et ita sequentia relucebunt. nihil enim aduersus regulam exempli licebit intellegi, ne, quia sequitur: et quod seminas, non corpus quod futurum est seminas, idcirco aliud resurrecturum corpus quam quod moriendo seminatur existimes. ceterum excidisti ab exemplo. numquam enim frumento seminato et in terra dissoluto ordeum erupit et non id ipsum genus grani eademque natura et qualitas et forma. denique unde (aliud.) si non id ipsum? et corruptela enim ipsum est, dum ipsius est. sed enim et suggerit, quomodo non quod futurum est corpus seminetur, dicens: sed nudum granum, si forte, frumenti uel alicuius eiusmodi: deus autem dat illi corpus prout uult. certe ei grano, quod nudum seminari ait. certe, inquis. ergo saluum est cui dare habet deus corpus. quomodo autem saluum est, si nusquam est, si non resurgit, si non id ipsum resurgit? si non resurgit, saluum non est. si non est et saluum, accipere corpus a deo non potest. sed enim saluum omni modo constat. ad quid ergo dabit illi deus prout uult corpus, habenti utique proprium corpus illud nudum, nisi ut iam non nudum resurgat? ergo additum erit quod corpori superstruitur, nec exterminatur illud, cui superstruitur, sed augetur. saluum est autem quod augetur. seritur enim solummodo granum sine folliculi ueste, sine fundamento spicae, sine munimento aristae. sine superbia culmi. exurgit autem copia feneratum, compagine aedificatum, ordine structum, cultu munitum et usquequaque uestitum. haec sunt ei corpus a deo aliud, in quod non abolitione sed ampliatione mutatur, ut tunc et illud suum sit, quod extrinsecus a deo adquirit: et unicuique seminum suum corpus; puta re non suum, id est non pristinum. serui igitur exemplo et conserua speculum eius carni: eandem credes fructificaturam, quae sit seminata, ipsam, etsi pleniorem, non aliam, etsi aliter reuertentem. accipiet enim et ipsa suggestum et ornatum, qualem illi deus uoluerit superducere secundum merita. sine dubio ad hoc direxit: non omnis caro eadem caro: non ad denegandam substantiae communionem sed praerogatiuae peraequationem, corpus honoris, non generis, in differentiam redigens. in hoc et figurata subicit exempla animalium et elementorum: alia caro hominis, id est serui dei, qui uere homo est. alia iumenti, id est ethnici, — de quo et propheta: adsimilatus est, inquit, homo inrationabilibus iumentis, — alia caro uolatilium, id est martyrum, qui ad superiora conantur, alia piscium, id est quibus aqua baptismatis sufficit. sic et de supercaelestibus corporibus argumenta committit: alia solis gloria, id est Christi. et alia lunae, id est ecclesiae, et alia stellarum, id est seminis Abrahae. et stella enim a stella differt in gloria, et corpora terrena et caelestia, Iudaeus scilicet et Christianus. ceterum si non figurate, satis uane mulorum et miluorum carnes et corpora caelestium luminum apposuit humanis, non pertinentia ad condicionis comparationem sicut nec ad resurrectionis consecutionem. postremo cum per haec differentiam gloriae, non substantiae, conclusisset, sic, inquit, et resurrectio mortuorum. quomodo? non de alio aliquo, sed de sola gloria differens. rursus enim resurrectionem ad eandem substantiam reuocans et ad granum denuo spectans: seminatur, inquit, (in) corruptela, resurgit (in) incorruptela; seminatur in dedecoratione, resurgit in gloria: seminatur in infirmitate, resurgit in uirtute; seminatur corpus animale, resurgit spiritale. certe non aliud resurgit quam quod seminatur, nec aliud seminatur quam quod dissoluitur humi, nec aliud dissoluitur humi quam caro. hanc enim sententia dei elisit: terra es et in terram ibis, quia et de terra erat sumpta. hinc et apostolus concepit seminari eam dicere, cum rehibetur in terram, quia et seminibus sequestratorium terra est, illic deponendis et inde repetendis. ideoque et consignat imprimens: sic enim scriptum est, ne aliud existimes esse seminari quam: in terram ibis, ex qua es sumptus; sic nec alterius quam carnis. [sic enim scriptum est.]

### English translation (Claude)

Let us see now with what body he argues the dead will come. And it is good that he broke out at once to show it, as though someone were asking such a thing. “Fool,” he says, “what you sow is not brought to life unless it dies.” From the example of the seed, then, let this now be established: that no other flesh is brought to life than the very flesh that has died; and so what follows will shine out clearly. For nothing may be understood against the rule of the example, so that, because there follows, “and what you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be,” you should not therefore think that a different body will rise from the one that is sown in dying. Otherwise you have fallen away from the example. For never, when wheat has been sown and dissolved in the earth, has barley sprung up, rather than the very same kind of grain, with the same nature, quality, and form. In short, where would another come from, if not from this very one? For even its corruption is itself, since it is the corruption of this. But he also indicates how it is not the body that is to be that is sown, saying: “but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of some such kind; but God gives it a body as he wills.” To that grain, surely, which he says is sown bare. “Surely,” you say. Then that to which God is to give a body is preserved. But how is it preserved if it is nowhere, if it does not rise, if it is not the very same that rises? If it does not rise, it is not preserved; if it is not preserved, it cannot receive a body from God. But it is agreed to be preserved in every way. For what purpose, then, will God give it a body as he wills, when it certainly has its own bare body, unless that it may rise no longer bare? So what is built on to the body will be an addition; nor is that on which it is built destroyed, but increased. And what is increased is preserved. For the grain is sown alone, without the clothing of the husk, without the foundation of the ear, without the defence of the beard, without the pride of the stalk. But it rises enriched with abundance, built up in structure, arranged in order, defended by its array, and clothed on every side. These are for it a different body from God, into which it is changed not by abolition but by enlargement, so that then that too is its own which it acquires from God from outside. “And to each of the seeds its own body”: not its own, that is, not its former one. Keep to the example, then, and keep its mirror for the flesh: you will believe that the same flesh will bear fruit that was sown, the very same, though fuller; not another, though returning in another way. For it too will receive the array and adornment which God wills to put upon it according to its merits. Without doubt it was to this that he directed the words, “Not all flesh is the same flesh”: not to deny community of substance but equality of privilege, bringing the body into a difference of honour, not of kind. To this end he adds figurative examples of animals and elements too: “one flesh of man,” that is, of the servant of God, who is truly man; “another of beasts,” that is, of the heathen, of whom the prophet too says, “Man has been likened to the senseless beasts”; “another flesh of birds,” that is, of martyrs, who strive toward higher things; “another of fishes,” that is, of those for whom the water of baptism is enough. So too he brings arguments from the super-heavenly bodies: “one glory of the sun,” that is, of Christ; “and another of the moon,” that is, of the church; “and another of the stars,” that is, of the seed of Abraham; “for star differs from star in glory”; “and bodies earthly and heavenly,” the Jew, that is, and the Christian. Otherwise, if not figuratively, he quite pointlessly set the flesh of mules and kites and the bodies of the heavenly lights beside human bodies, when they bear neither on a comparison of condition nor on the attainment of resurrection. Finally, when by these he had concluded a difference of glory, not of substance, “So too,” he says, “is the resurrection of the dead.” How? Differing in nothing else but in glory alone. For again recalling the resurrection to the same substance, and looking back to the grain: “It is sown,” he says, “in corruption, it rises in incorruption; it is sown in dishonour, it rises in glory; it is sown in weakness, it rises in power; it is sown an animal body, it rises a spiritual body.” Certainly nothing else rises than what is sown, nor is anything else sown than what is dissolved in the ground, nor is anything else dissolved in the ground than the flesh. For this is what God's sentence struck down: “Earth you are and into earth you shall go,” since it had also been taken from the earth. Hence the apostle too conceived the idea of saying that it is sown when it is given back to the earth, since the earth is also a depository for seeds, to be laid down there and sought back from there. And therefore he also seals it, pressing it home: “for so it is written,” lest you think that to be sown means anything other than “into the earth you shall go, from which you were taken”; and so it is said of nothing other than the flesh.

### Scripture references

- 1 Cor 15:35: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:36: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:37: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:38: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:39: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 49:12 (48:13 LXX; 48:13 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:40: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:41: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:42: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:43: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:44: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 3:19: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:45: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations and allusions: 1 Cor 15:35–45; Ps 49:12, 20 (48:13, 21 LXX/Vulg.); Gen 3:19. “Animal body” renders “corpus animale” (a body animated by the soul; Greek ψυχικόν). “Not its own, that is, not its former one” renders the obscure “puta re non suum”, probably corrupt. The allegorical reading of the animals and heavenly bodies (martyrs as birds, the baptized as fish, the church as the moon) is Tertullian's own. The words of 1 Cor 15:42 are garbled in the digital text and restored. The closing “[sic enim scriptum est]”, bracketed in the edition as a deletion, is left out.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 52 (CSEL 47:107–109; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/46/#p-52).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 53

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/53/#p-53
- Source: CSEL 47:109–112
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The “animal body” that is sown and raised a “spiritual body” is the flesh, not the soul, as the examples of Lazarus and of the first and last Adam show.

### Latin text

Sed corpus animale animam quidam argumentantur, ut illum a carne auocent recidiuatum. porro cum constet fixumque sit illud resurrecturum corpus, quod fuerit seminatum, ad ipsius rei exhibitionem prouocabuntur. aut ostendant animam seminatam post mortem, id est mortuam, id est humi elisam disiectam dissolutam, quod in illam decretum a deo non est; proponant corruptelam eius et dedecorationem (et> infirmitatem, ut ipsius sit etiam consurgere in incorruptelam et in gloriam et in uirtutem. sed enim in Lazaro, praecipuo resurrectionis exemplo, caro iacuit in infirmitate, caro paene computruit in dedecorationem, caro interim putuit in corruptionem, et tamen Lazarus caro resurrexit, cum anima quidem, sed incorrupta, quam nemo uinculis lineis strinxerat, nemo in sepulcro collocarat, nemo iam foetere senserat, nemo quatriduo uiderat seminatam. totum habitum. totum exitum Lazari omnium quoque caro hodie experitur. anima uero nullius. in qua ergo stilus apostoli comparet, de qua eum loqui constat, ea erit et corpus animale, cum seminatur, et spiritale, cum suscitatur. nam ut ita intellegas. manum adhuc porrigit, aeque de eiusdem scripturae auctoritate factum retexens primum hominem Adam in animam uiuentem. si Adam homo primus, caro autem homo ante animam, sine dubio caro erit facta in animam. facta porro in animam, cum esset corpus, utique animale corpus est facta. quid eam appellari uelint quam quod per animam facta est. quam quod ante animam non fuit, quam quod post animam non erit, nisi cum resurgit? recepta enim anima rursus animale corpus efficitur, ut fiat spiritale. non enim resurgit nisi quod fuit. ita unde carni competit corpus animale dici, inde animae nullo modo competit. caro enim ante corpus quam animale corpus. animata enim, postea facta est corpus animale. anima uero etsi corpus, tamen, quia ipsa est corpus non animatum sed animans potius, animale corpus non potest dici nec fieri quod facit. alii enim accidens facit illud animale: non accidens autem alii quomodo se faciet animale? sicut ergo ante animale corpus caro, recipiens animam. ita et postea spiritale, induens spiritum. hunc ordinem apostolus disponens in Adam quoque et in Christo. eum merito distinguit ut in capitibus distinctionis ipsius *** at cum Christum nouissimum Adam appellat, hinc eum recognosce ad carnis, non ad animae, resurrectionem omnibus doctrinae uiribus operatum. si enim et primus homo, Adam, caro, non anima, qui denique in animam uiuam factus est, et nouissimus Adam, Christus, ideo Adam quia homo, ideo homo quia caro, non quia anima. atque ita (si) subiungit: non primum quod spiritale sed quod animale, postea quod spiritale, secundum utrumque Adam. ecquid tibi uidetur corpus animale et corpus spiritale in eadem carne distinguere, cuius distinctionem in utroque Adam, id est in utroque homine, praestruxit? ex qua enim substantia pariant inter se Christus et Adam? scilicet ex carne. licet et ex anima, sed carnis nomine homo uterque sunt; prior enim caro homo. ex illa et ordinem admittere potuerunt, ut alter primus, alter nouissimus homo, id est Adam, deputarentur. ceterum diuersa in ordinem disponi non possunt, de substantia dumtaxat. de loco enim aut tempore aut condicione forsitan possint. hic autem de substantia carnis primus et nouissimus dicti sunt, sicut et rursus primus homo de terra et secundus de caelo; quia etsi de caelo secundum spiritum, sed homo secundum carnem. itaque cum carni conueniat ordo in utroque Adam, non animae, [ut primus homo in animam uiuam, nouissimus in spiritum uiuificantem distincti sunt] aeque distinctio eorum carni distinctionem praeiudicabit, ut de carne sit dictum: non primum quod spiritale sed quod animale, postea quod spiritale, atque ita eadem sit et supra intellegenda et quae seminetur, corpus animale, et quae resurgat, corpus spiritale, [quia non primum quod spiritale. sed quod animale] quia primus Adam in animam, nouissimus Adam in spiritum. totum de homine, totum de carne, quando de homine quid ergo dicemus? nonne et nunc habet caro, spiritum ex fide? ut quaerendum sit, quomodo corpus animale dicatur seminari. plane accipit et hic spiritum caro, sed arrabonem, animae autem non arrabonem sed plenitudinem. itaque etiam propterea, maioris substantiae nomine, animale corpus nuncupata est, in quo seminatur, futura proinde per plenitudinem spiritus insuper spiritale, in quo resuscitatur. quid mirum, si magis inde uocitata est, unde conferta est, quam unde respersa est?

### English translation (Claude)

But some argue that the “animal body” is the soul, in order to draw that body away from the flesh that is to be restored. Now since it is agreed and fixed that the body that will rise is the one that was sown, they will be challenged to produce the thing itself. Either let them show the soul sown after death, that is, dead, that is, dashed to the ground, scattered, dissolved, which God has not decreed against it; let them set out its corruption and dishonour and weakness, so that it may also belong to the soul to rise into incorruption and glory and power. But in Lazarus, the chief example of resurrection, it was the flesh that lay in weakness, the flesh that had almost rotted into dishonour, the flesh that meanwhile stank into corruption; and yet Lazarus rose as flesh, with the soul indeed, but a soul uncorrupted, which no one had bound with linen bands, no one had laid in the tomb, no one had yet perceived to stink, no one had seen sown for four days. The whole condition, the whole end of Lazarus, the flesh of all men experiences today as well; but the soul of none. The one, then, in which the apostle’s pen appears, the one of which it is agreed he speaks, will be both the animal body when it is sown and the spiritual body when it is raised. For, that you may understand it so, he still holds out his hand, likewise going back over, on the authority of the same Scripture, the fact that the first man Adam was made “into a living soul.” If Adam is the first man, and the flesh is the man before the soul, then without doubt it is the flesh that was made into a soul. And being made into a soul when it was a body, it was surely made an animal body. What would they have it called but what it became through the soul, what it was not before the soul, what it will not be after the soul, except when it rises? For when it has received the soul again, it becomes once more an animal body, so that it may become spiritual. For nothing rises except what was. So the ground on which it suits the flesh to be called an animal body is the very ground on which it in no way suits the soul. For the flesh was a body before it was an animal body; it was given a soul, and afterwards was made an animal body. But the soul, even if it is a body, yet because it is not itself an ensouled body but rather an ensouling one, cannot be called an animal body, nor become what it makes. For it makes something else animal by coming to it; but, not coming to something else, how will it make itself animal? As, then, the flesh was first an animal body on receiving the soul, so afterwards it will be spiritual on putting on the spirit. The apostle, setting out this order in Adam and in Christ as well, rightly distinguishes it, so that in the heads of the distinction itself … But when he calls Christ the last Adam, recognize from this that he laboured with all the strength of his teaching for the resurrection of the flesh, not of the soul. For if the first man Adam was flesh, not soul, being the one who was afterwards made into a living soul, then the last Adam, Christ, is Adam because he is man, and man because he is flesh, not because he is soul. And so he adds: “Not first what is spiritual, but what is animal; afterwards what is spiritual,” according to each Adam. Does he not seem to you to distinguish the animal body and the spiritual body in the same flesh, whose distinction he has laid down beforehand in each Adam, that is, in each man? For in what substance are Christ and Adam matched with each other? In the flesh, clearly. In the soul too, admittedly; but it is by the name of flesh that each of them is a man, for the flesh was man first. From that substance they could also admit an order, so that one was reckoned the first man, the other the last, that is, Adam. Things of different kinds, however, cannot be arranged in an order, at least as regards substance; as regards place or time or condition, perhaps they can. But here they are called first and last with regard to the substance of the flesh, just as again the first man is “from the earth” and the second “from heaven”; for although he is from heaven according to the spirit, yet he is man according to the flesh. Therefore, since the order in each Adam fits the flesh, not the soul, their distinction likewise will settle the distinction of the flesh beforehand, so that it was said of the flesh: “Not first what is spiritual, but what is animal; afterwards what is spiritual.” And so the same flesh must be understood above as both what is sown, the animal body, and what rises, the spiritual body, because the first Adam was made into a soul, the last Adam into a spirit. It is all about man, all about the flesh, since it is about man. What then shall we say? Does not the flesh even now have the spirit, by faith? So that we must ask how it is said to be sown an animal body. Clearly the flesh receives the spirit here too, but as an earnest; whereas of the soul it has not an earnest but the fullness. Therefore it was also named an animal body, from the name of the greater substance, in the state in which it is sown, since through the fullness of the spirit it is to be spiritual besides, in the state in which it is raised. What wonder if it is called rather after what it is filled with than after what it is sprinkled with?

### Scripture references

- 1 Cor 15:44: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:42: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:43: allusion, high confidence
- John 11:44: allusion, high confidence
- John 11:39: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:45: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 2:7: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:46: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:47: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 1:22: allusion, medium confidence
- 2 Cor 5:5: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations and allusions: 1 Cor 15:42–47; Gen 2:7; John 11:17–44 (Lazarus); the “earnest” (arrabo) of the Spirit, 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5. “Animal body” renders corpus animale (a body animated by the soul; Greek ψυχικόν). The edition marks a gap (***) after “the heads of the distinction itself”; the sentence breaks off there. Two bracketed passages that the editor deletes are left out: “[as the first man is distinguished into a living soul, the last into a life-giving spirit]” and “[because not first what is spiritual but what is animal]”. “Matched with each other” renders the unusual pariant inter se.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 53 (CSEL 47:109–112; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/53/#p-53).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 54

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/53/#p-54
- Source: CSEL 47:112–113
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Paul’s “swallowed up by life” means that the mortal flesh is taken into and clothed with immortality, not destroyed; it is death that is swallowed up for destruction.

### Latin text

Ita de uocabulorum occasionibus plurimum quaestiones subornantur, sicut et de uerborum communionibus. nam quia et illud apud apostolum positum est: uti deuoretur mortale a uita, caro scilicet, deuorationem quoque ad perditionem scilicet carnis arripiunt, quasi non bilem et dolorem dicamur deuorare, id est abscondere ac tegere et intra nosmetipsos continere. denique cum et illud scriptum sit: oportet mortale hoc induere inmortalitatem, ostenditur, quomodo mortale deuoretur a uita, dum indutum inmortalitate absconditur et tegitur et intus continetur, non dum absumitur et amittitur. ergo et mors, inquis, salua erit, cum fuerit deuorata. ideo discerne pro sensibus communionem uerborum, et integre intelleges. aliud enim mors et aliud mortale. aliter itaque deuorabitur mors et aliter mortale. mors non capit inmortalitatem, mortale autem capit. denique et scriptum est, quod necesse sit mortale hoc induere inmortalitatem. quomodo ergo capit? dum deuoratur a uita. quomodo deuoratur a uita? dum recipitur et redigitur et includitur in ipsam. ceterum mors merito (in) interitum deuoratur, quia et ipsa in hoc deuorat. deuorauit, inquit, mors inualescendo, et ideo deuorata est in contentionem. ubi est, mors, aculeus tuus? ubi est, mors, contentio tua? proinde et uita, mortis scilicet aemula, per contentionem deuorabit in salutem quod per contentionem tum deuorauerit mors in interitum.

### English translation (Claude)

So a great many questions are contrived out of the occasions offered by words, as also out of words that share more than one meaning. For since this too is set down in the apostle, “that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life” (the flesh, of course), they seize on the swallowing as meaning the destruction of the flesh; as if we were not said to swallow bile and grief, that is, to hide and cover them and keep them within ourselves. Indeed, since it is also written, “This mortal must put on immortality,” it is shown how what is mortal is swallowed up by life: when, clothed with immortality, it is hidden and covered and held within, not when it is consumed and lost. “Then death too,” you say, “will be kept safe, when it has been swallowed up.” Therefore distinguish words that share a form according to their senses, and you will understand soundly. For death is one thing and what is mortal is another. So death will be swallowed up in one way and what is mortal in another. Death does not admit immortality, but what is mortal does. Indeed it is written that this mortal must put on immortality. How then does it admit it? By being swallowed up by life. How is it swallowed up by life? By being received and brought back and enclosed within it. Death, on the other hand, is rightly swallowed up into destruction, because it too swallows for that end. “Death,” it says, “swallowed, prevailing,” and therefore “it has been swallowed up into strife. Where, O death, is your sting? Where, O death, is your strife?” So too life, the rival of death, will through strife swallow up into salvation what death through strife had once swallowed up into destruction.

### Scripture references

- 2 Cor 5:4: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:53: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 25:8: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:54: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:55: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: 2 Cor 5:4; 1 Cor 15:53–55; “death swallowed, prevailing” is Isa 25:8 in the Greek form (κατέπιεν ὁ θάνατος ἰσχύσας). “Into strife” (in contentionem) reflects a Greek reading νεῖκος (“strife”) for νῖκος (“victory”) in 1 Cor 15:54–55.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 54 (CSEL 47:112–113; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/53/#p-54).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 55

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/53/#p-55
- Source: CSEL 47:113–115
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: To be changed is not to be destroyed: Scripture shows people transformed yet remaining themselves, and so the flesh will be changed at the resurrection without ceasing to be the same flesh.

### Latin text

Quamquam igitur, resurrecturam carnem probantes, hoc ipso non aliam resurrecturam probemus quam de qua agitur, tamen singulae quaestiones et causae earum proprios quoque flagitant congressus, licet aliunde iam caesae. interpretabimur itaque plenius et uim et rationem demutationis, quae ferme subministrat alterius carnis resurrecturae praesumptionem, quasi demutari desinere sit in totum et de pristino perire. discernenda est autem demutatio ab omni argumento perditionis. aliud enim demutatio. aliud perditio. porro non aliud, si ita demutabitur caro, ut pereat. peribit autem demutata, si non ipsa permanserit in demutatione, quae exhibita fuerit in resurrectione. quemadmodum enim perit, si non resurgit, ita et si resurgit quidem, uerum in demutatione subducitur, aeque perit. aeque enim non erit, acsi non resurrexerit. et quam ineptum, si in hoc resurgit, ut non sit, quae potuit non resurrexisse, (ut) non esset, quia non esse iam coeperat. non miscebuntur omnino diuersa, mutatio atque perditio, operibus utique diuersa. perdit haec, illa mutat. quomodo ergo quod perditum est mutatum non est, ita quod mutatum est perditum non est. perisse enim est in totum non esse quod fuerit; mutatum esse aliter esse est. porro dum aliter est, id ipsum potest esse. habet enim esse quod non perit; mutationem enim passum est, non perditionem. atque adeo potest et demutari quid et ipsum esse nihilominus, ut et totus homo in hoc aeuo substantia quidem ipse est, multifariam tamen demutatur, et habitu et ipsa corpulentia et ualitudine et condicione et dignitate et aetate, studio negotio artificio facultatibus sedibus legibus moribus. nec quicquam tamen amittit hominis nec ita alius efficitur, ut cesset idem esse. immo nec alius efficitur, sed aliud. hanc formam demutationis diuina etiam documenta testantur. mutatur Mosei manus et quidem ad instar emortuae exsanguis est, exalbida, frigida, sed et recepto calore et refuso colore eadem caro et sanguis est. mutatur postea et facies eiusdem incontemplabili claritate. sed Moyses erat proinde qui non uidebatur. sic et Stephanus angelicum iam fastigium induerat, sed non alia genua lapidationi succiderant. dominus quoque in secessu montis etiam uestimenta luce mutauerat, sed liniamenta Petro agnoscibilia seruauerat; ubi etiam Moyses et Helias, alter in imagine carnis nondum receptae alter in ueritate nondum defunctae, eandem tamen habitudinem corporis etiam in gloria perseuerare docuerunt. de quo exemplo instructus et Paulus: qui transfigurabit, inquit, corpus humilitatis nostrae conformale corpori gloriae suae. quodsi et transfigurationem et conuersionem in transitum substantiae cuiusque defendis, ergo et Saulus in alium uirum conuersus de corpore suo excessit? et ipse satanas, cum in angelum lucis transfiguratur, qualitatem suam amittit? non opinor. ita et in resurrectionis euentu mutari conuerti reformari licebit cum salute substantiae.

### English translation (Claude)

Although, then, in proving that the flesh will rise we thereby prove that no other flesh will rise than the one under discussion, yet the individual questions and their grounds demand encounters of their own, even though they have already been cut down elsewhere. We will therefore explain more fully both the force and the meaning of change, which is what chiefly supplies the presumption that another flesh will rise, as if to be changed were to cease wholly and to perish out of one’s former state. But change must be distinguished from every argument for destruction. For change is one thing, destruction another. Yet they would not be different if the flesh were to be changed in such a way as to perish. And it will perish in being changed if it does not itself remain in the change, the same flesh that was produced in the resurrection. For just as it perishes if it does not rise, so too if it rises indeed but is withdrawn in the change, it perishes equally; for it will not be, just as if it had not risen. And how absurd, if it rises in order not to be, when it could have not risen and so not been, since it had already begun not to be! Things wholly different, change and destruction, will never be confused, differing as they surely do in their workings: the one destroys, the other changes. As, then, what has been destroyed has not been changed, so what has been changed has not been destroyed. For to have perished is wholly not to be what it was; to have been changed is to be otherwise. And while it is otherwise, it can be the very same; for it retains being, since it does not perish; it has undergone change, not destruction. And so a thing can both be changed and nonetheless be itself, just as the whole man in this age is indeed himself in substance, yet is changed in many ways: in bearing, in bodily bulk itself, in health, in condition, in rank, in age, in pursuits, business, craft, means, dwelling, laws, and manners. And yet he loses nothing of the man, nor does he become another so as to cease to be the same. Indeed he does not become another man, but something other. This form of change the divine records also attest. Moses’ hand is changed, and is indeed bloodless like a dead man’s, whitened, cold; but when its warmth is restored and its colour poured back, it is the same flesh and blood. Afterwards the same man’s face too is changed with a brightness that could not be gazed on; but it was Moses all the same, who could not be looked at. So Stephen too had already put on the loftiness of an angel, but it was not other knees that sank down under the stoning. The Lord also, in the seclusion of the mountain, had changed even his garments with light, but had kept features recognizable to Peter; where Moses and Elijah also, the one in the likeness of a flesh not yet received back, the other in the reality of a flesh not yet dead, showed that the same bearing of the body persists even in glory. Instructed by this example, Paul too says: “who will transfigure the body of our lowliness, conformed to the body of his glory.” But if you maintain that transfiguration and conversion mean the passing away of the substance of each thing, did Saul then, when he was “turned into another man,” depart from his own body? And does Satan himself, when he “is transfigured into an angel of light,” lose his own quality? I think not. So too in the event of the resurrection it will be possible to be changed, converted, and re-formed while the substance is kept safe.

### Scripture references

- Exod 4:6: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 4:7: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 34:29: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 34:30: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 6:15: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 7:60: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 17:2: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 17:3: allusion, high confidence
- Phil 3:21: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Sam 10:6: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Cor 11:14: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions and quotation: Exod 4:6–7 (Moses’ hand); Exod 34:29–35 (his shining face); Acts 6:15; 7:59–60 (Stephen); Matt 17:1–4 (the transfiguration); Phil 3:21 (quoted); 1 Sam 10:6 (Saul “turned into another man”); 2 Cor 11:14 (Satan as an angel of light). Moses appears “in the likeness of a flesh not yet received back” because he had died; Elijah “in the reality of a flesh not yet dead” because he was taken up alive (2 Kgs 2:11).

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 55 (CSEL 47:113–115; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/53/#p-55).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 56

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/53/#p-56
- Source: CSEL 47:115–116
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: It would be unjust for one flesh to suffer or sin and another to be rewarded or punished, and the risen person must remember being the one who is judged.

### Latin text

Etenim quam absurdum, quam uero et iniquum, utrumque autem quam deo indignum, aliam substantiam operari aliam mercede dispungi, ut haec quidem caro per martyria lanietur alia uero coronetur, item e contrario haec quidem caro in spurcitiis uolutetur alia uero damnetur. nonne praestat omnem semel fidem a spe resurrectionis abducere quam de grauitate atque iustitia dei ludere? Marcionem pro Valentino resuscitari? quando neque mentem neque memoriam neque conscientiam hominis hodierni credibile sit aboleri per indumentum illud mutatorium inmortalitatis et incorruptelae, uacaturo scilicet emolumento et fructu resurrectionis et statu diuini utrobique iudicii. si non meminerim me esse qui merui, quomodo gloriam deo dicam? quomodo canam illi nouum canticum. nesciens me esse qui gratiam debeam? cur autem solius carnis demutatio excipitur, non et animae simul, quae in omnibus praefuit carni? quale est, ut eadem anima, quae in hac carne totum uitae ordinem decucurrit, quae in hac carne deum didicit et Christum induit et spem salutis seminauit, in alia nescio qua metat fructum? ne illa gratiosissima caro, cui gratis uita constabit. quodsi non et anima mutabitur. iam nec animae resurrectio est; nec ipsa enim resurrexisse credetur, si non alia resurrexerit.

### English translation (Claude)

For how absurd, and indeed how unjust, and both how unworthy of God, that one substance should do the work and another be paid the reward: that this flesh should be torn apart in martyrdom and another be crowned; and conversely, that this flesh should wallow in filth and another be condemned! Would it not be better to lead all faith away from the hope of resurrection once and for all than to trifle with the gravity and justice of God, raising Marcion in place of Valentinus? For it is not credible that the mind, the memory, and the conscience of the present man will be abolished by that changing garment of immortality and incorruption; otherwise the gain and fruit of the resurrection and the standing of the divine judgment on either side would be void. If I do not remember that I am the one who deserved it, how shall I give glory to God? How shall I sing him a new song, not knowing that I am the one who owes him thanks? And why is the change applied to the flesh alone, and not to the soul as well, which presided over the flesh in all things? What kind of thing is it that the same soul which ran through the whole course of life in this flesh, which in this flesh learned God and put on Christ and sowed the hope of salvation, should reap the harvest in some other flesh, I know not which? Truly that would be a most favoured flesh, to which life would come free of charge! But if the soul is not also to be changed, then there is no resurrection of the soul either; for the soul itself will not be believed to have risen either, if it is not another soul that has risen.

### Scripture references

- Ps 96:1 (95:1 Vulg.; 95:1 LXX): allusion, medium confidence
- Rev 5:9: echo, medium confidence
- Gal 3:27: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- “Raising Marcion in place of Valentinus” is a proverbial jibe: rewarding or punishing one man for another’s deeds. The “new song” recalls Ps 96:1 (95:1 Vulg.) and Rev 5:9; “put on Christ” recalls Gal 3:27. The last sentence turns the opponents’ logic against them: if rising means being replaced by another, the soul too would have to be another in order to rise.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 56 (CSEL 47:115–116; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/53/#p-56).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 57

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/53/#p-57
- Source: CSEL 47:116–118
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The flesh will rise not with its injuries and defects but whole, as a freed slave keeps the same body yet no longer suffers a slave’s punishments.

### Latin text

Hinc iam illa uulgaris incredulitatis argutia est: si, inquiunt, ipsa eademque substantia reuocatur cum sua forma linea qualitate, ergo et cum insignibus suis reliquis. itaque et caeci et claudi et paralytici et ut quis insignis excesserit, ita et reuertetur. quid nunc. etsi ita dedignaris tantam gratiam qualiscumque a deo consequi? non enim et nunc animae solius admittens salutem dimidiatis hominibus eadem adscribis? quid est credere resurrectionem, nisi integram credere? si enim caro de dissolutione reparabitur, multo magis de uexatione reuocabitur. minoribus maiora praescribunt. cuiuscumque membri detruncatio uel obtusio nonne mors membri est? si uniuersalis mors resurrectione rescinditur, quid portionalis? si demutamur in gloriam, quanto magis in incolomitatem? uitiatio corporum accidens res est, integritas propria est. in hac nascimur: etiam si in utero uexemur, iam hominis est passio: prius est genus quam casus. quomodo uita confertur a deo. ita et refertur. quales eam accipimus, tales et recipimus. naturae, non iniuriae reddimur; quod nascimur, non quod laedimur, reuiuescimus. si non integros deus suscitat, non suscitat mortuos. quis enim mortuus integer, etsi integer moritur? quis incolomis qui exanimis? quod corpus inlaesum. cum interenitum, cum frigidum. cum expallidum, cum edurum. cum cadauer? quando magis homo debilis. nisi cum totus? quando magis paralyticus, nisi cum inmobilis? ita nihil aliud est mortuum resuscitari quam integrum fieri, ne ex ea parte mortuus adhuc sit, ex qua non resurrexerit. idoneus deus reficere quod fecit; hanc suam et potestatem et liberalitatem satis iam in Christo spopondit, immo et ostendit, non tantum resuscitatore carnis uerum etiam redintegratore. atque adeo et apostolus: et mortui, inquit, resurgent incorrupti. quomodo, nisi integri, qui retro corrupti tam uitio ualitudinis quam et senio sepulturae? nam et supra utrumque proponens, oportere et corruptiuum istud induere incorruptelam et mortale istud inmortalitatem, non iterauit sententiam sed differentiam demandauit. inmortalitatem enim ad rescissionem mortis, incorruptelam ad obliterationem corruptelae diuidendo alteram ad resurrectionem, alteram ad redintegrationem temperauit. puto autem et Thesalonicensibus omnis substantiae integritatem repromisit. itaque nec in posterum timebuntur corporum labes. nihil poterit amittere integritas uel conseruata uel restituta. ex quo illi etiam, si quid amiserat, redditur. praescribens enim adhuc easdem passiones obituram carnem, si eadem resurrectura dicatur, naturam aduersus dominum suum temere defendis, legem aduersus gratiam impie adseris. quasi domino non liceat et mutare naturam sine lege et seruare. quo enim legimus: quae impossibilia apud homines, possibilia apud deum et: stulta mundi elegit deus, ut sapientia mundi confundat? oro te, si famulum tuum libertate mutaueris, quia eadem caro atque anima permanebunt, quae flagellis et compedibus et stigmatibus obnoxiae retro fuerant, idcircone illas eadem pati oportebit? non opinor. atquin et uestis albae nitore et anuli aurei honore et patroni nomine ac tribu mensaque honoratur. permitte hanc et deo potestatem per uim demutationis illius condicionem, non naturam, reformandi, dum et passiones auferuntur et munitiones conferuntur. ita manebit quidem caro etiam post resurrectionem eatenus passibilis, qua ipsa, qua eadem, ea tamen impassibilis, qua in hoc ipsum manumissa a domino, ne ultra pati possit.

### English translation (Claude)

From this comes that familiar quibble of unbelief: “If,” they say, “the very same substance is recalled with its form, lineaments, and quality, then also with its other marks. So the blind and the lame and the paralysed, and however anyone was marked when he departed, so he will return.” What then? Even so, do you disdain to obtain so great a grace from God, whatever your state? For do you not even now, by admitting the salvation of the soul alone, assign the same salvation to men cut in half? What is it to believe in resurrection, if not to believe in it whole? For if the flesh is to be restored from dissolution, much more will it be recalled from injury. The greater things settle the lesser. Is not the cutting off or maiming of any limb the death of that limb? If universal death is cancelled by resurrection, what of partial death? If we are changed into glory, how much more into soundness? The impairment of bodies is an accident; wholeness is proper to them. In wholeness we are born; even if we are injured in the womb, it is already a human being who suffers: kind comes before mishap. As life is conferred by God, so it is conferred again. As we receive it, so we receive it back. We are restored to nature, not to injury; we come to life again as what we are born, not as what we are harmed. If God does not raise men whole, he does not raise the dead. For what dead man is whole, even if he dies whole? Who is sound who is lifeless? What body is unharmed when it has been slain, when it is cold, when it is pallid, when it is stiff, when it is a corpse? When is a man more disabled than when he is wholly so? When more paralysed than when he is motionless? So for a dead man to be raised is nothing else than for him to be made whole, lest he still be dead in that part in which he has not risen. God is able to remake what he made. This power and generosity of his he has already sufficiently pledged in Christ, indeed shown, as not only the raiser of the flesh but also its restorer to wholeness. And so the apostle too says: “and the dead will rise incorrupt.” How, unless whole, they who before were corrupted as much by the defects of ill health as by the decay of the grave? For above too, setting out both, that “this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal immortality,” he did not repeat the statement but committed a difference to us. For by assigning immortality to the cancelling of death and incorruption to the blotting out of corruption, he fitted the one to resurrection and the other to restoration. And I think he also promised the Thessalonians the wholeness of the entire substance. So in the future the defects of bodies will not be feared either. Wholeness, whether preserved or restored, will be able to lose nothing; from the moment when even what it had lost is given back to it. But when you lay it down that the flesh will still undergo the same sufferings if it is said to rise the same, you rashly defend nature against its Lord and impiously assert law against grace, as though the Lord were not free both to change nature without law and to preserve it. For why do we read, “What is impossible with men is possible with God,” and, “God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wisdom of the world”? I ask you: if you change the state of your slave by freedom, must the same flesh and soul, because they remain which were once exposed to whips and fetters and brands, therefore suffer the same things? I think not. On the contrary, he is honoured with the brightness of the white garment, the honour of the gold ring, and the name, tribe, and table of his patron. Allow God too this power, by the force of that change, to re-form the condition, not the nature, while sufferings are taken away and protections conferred. So the flesh will remain, even after the resurrection, passible insofar as it is itself, insofar as it is the same; yet impassible insofar as it has been manumitted by the Lord for this very purpose, that it may no longer be able to suffer.

### Scripture references

- 1 Cor 15:52: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:53: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Thess 5:23: allusion, medium confidence
- Luke 18:27: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 1:27: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations and allusions: 1 Cor 15:52–53; 1 Thess 5:23 (the whole person kept sound); Luke 18:27; 1 Cor 1:27. The white garment, gold ring, and the patron’s name, tribe, and table are marks of a freed slave in Roman law and custom. “Slain” translates the doubtful interenitum of the digital text (perhaps interemptum or internecatum); the sense is clear.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 57 (CSEL 47:116–118; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/53/#p-57).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 58

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/53/#p-58
- Source: CSEL 47:118–119
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Scripture promises the end of pain and death, and its examples of preserved garments and bodies (Israel in the desert, the three young men, Jonah, Enoch and Elijah) foreshadow the flesh made whole.

### Latin text

Iocunditas. inquit Esaias, aeterna super caput eorum. nihil aeternum nisi post resurrectionem. aufugit, inquit, dolor et maeror et gemitus ab illis. proinde et Iohanni angelus: et delebit deus omnem lacrimam ab oculis eorum; utique ex isdem oculis, qui retro fleuerant quique adhuc flere potuissent, si non omnem lacrimae imbrem indulgentia diuina siccaret. et rursus: deus enim delebit omnem lacrimam ab oculis eorum, et mors hactenus; igitur et corruptela hactenus, proinde per incorruptelam fugata quemadmodum mors per inmortalitatem. si dolor et maeror et gemitus ipsaque mors ex laesuris et animae et carnis obueniunt, quomodo auferentur, nisi cessauerint causae, scilicet laesurae carnis atque animae? ubi casus aduersi apud dominum? aut ubi incursus infesti apud Christum? ubi daemonici impetus apud spiritum sanctum, iam et ipso diabolo cum angelis suis ignibus merso? ubi necessitas aut quod dicitur fortuna uel fatum? quae resuscitatis plaga post ueniam? quae reconciliatis ira post gratiam? quae infirmitas post uirtutem? quae imbecillitas post salutem? quod uestimenta et calciamenta filiorum Israhelis quadraginta illis annis indetrita inobsoleta manserunt, quod et in ipsis corporibus unguium et capillorum facilia crementa et habilitatis et dignitatis iustitia defixit, ne etiam enormitas corruptela deputaretur, quod Babylonii ignes trium fratrum nec tiaras nec sarabaras, quamquam Iudaeis alienas, laeserunt, quod Ionas deuoratus a belua maris, in cuius aluo naufragia digerebantur, triduo post incolomis expuitur, quod hodie Enoch et Helias, nondum resurrectione dispuncti, quia nec morte functi, qua tamen de orbe translati et hoc ipso iam aeternitatis candidati, ab omni uitio et ab omni damno et ab omni iniuria et contumelia emunitatem carnis ediscunt: cuinam fidei testimonium signant, nisi qua credi oportet haec futurae integritatis esse documenta? figurae enim nostrae fuerunt apostolo auctore, quae scripta sunt, ut et dominum potentiorem credamus omni corporum lege et carnis magis utique conseruatorem, cuius etiam uestimenta etiam calciamenta protexit.

### English translation (Claude)

“Everlasting joy,” says Isaiah, “upon their head.” Nothing is everlasting except after the resurrection. “Pain,” he says, “and sorrow and groaning have fled from them.” So too the angel to John: “And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes,” surely from the same eyes that once wept and that could still weep, if the divine kindness did not dry up every shower of tears. And again: “For God will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more”; therefore corruption shall be no more either, put to flight by incorruption as death is by immortality. If pain and sorrow and groaning and death itself arise from injuries to both soul and flesh, how will they be taken away unless their causes cease, namely the injuries of flesh and soul? Where are misfortunes in the presence of the Lord? Where are hostile assaults in the presence of Christ? Where are demonic attacks in the presence of the Holy Spirit, when the devil himself with his angels has already been plunged in fire? Where is necessity, or what is called fortune or fate? What blow for the raised after pardon? What wrath for the reconciled after grace? What weakness after power? What frailty after salvation? That the garments and shoes of the children of Israel remained unworn and unwasted for those forty years; that in their very bodies a just measure of fitness and seemliness fixed the easy growth of nails and hair, lest even excess be reckoned corruption; that the Babylonian fires did not harm the three brothers’ turbans or trousers, though these were foreign to Jews; that Jonah, swallowed by the sea monster in whose belly shipwrecks were digested, was spat out unharmed three days later; that Enoch and Elijah today, not yet discharged by resurrection because they have not undergone death, but translated from the world and by this very fact already candidates for eternity, are learning the flesh’s exemption from every defect, every loss, every injury and insult: to what faith do these set their seal as witnesses, if not to that by which we must believe that they are proofs of the wholeness to come? For these things, on the apostle’s authority, were figures of us, and were written that we might believe the Lord to be mightier than every law of bodies, and all the more the preserver of the flesh, since he protected even its garments, even its shoes.

### Scripture references

- Isa 35:10: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 51:11: quotation, medium confidence
- Rev 7:17: quotation, high confidence
- Rev 21:4: quotation, high confidence
- Rev 20:10: allusion, medium confidence
- Deut 29:5: allusion, high confidence
- Deut 8:4: allusion, high confidence
- Dan 3:21: allusion, high confidence
- Dan 3:27 (3:94 LXX; 3:94 Vulg.): allusion, high confidence
- Jonah 2:10: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 5:24: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Kgs 2:11: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 10:6: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 10:11: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations and allusions: Isa 35:10 (also 51:11); Rev 7:17; 21:4; Rev 20:10; Deut 8:4; 29:5; Dan 3:21, 27 (3:94 LXX/Vulg.); Jonah 1:17–2:10; Gen 5:24; 2 Kgs 2:11; 1 Cor 10:6, 11. That the Israelites’ hair and nails did not overgrow in the desert is not in Scripture; it reflects a tradition whose source is uncertain.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 58 (CSEL 47:118–119; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/53/#p-58).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 59

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/53/#p-59
- Source: CSEL 47:119–120
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Isaiah’s “all flesh is grass” and “all flesh shall see God’s salvation” distinguish the destinies of the same flesh, not two different kinds of flesh.

### Latin text

Sed futurum, inquis, aeuum alterius est dispositionis et aeternae; igitur huius aeui substantiam non aeternam diuersa possidere non posse. plane, si homo propter dispositionem futuram et non dispositio propter hominem. sed enim apostolus scribens: siue mundus siue uita siue mors siue futura siue praesentia, omnia uestra sunt. eosdem constituit heredes etiam futurorum. nihil tibi largitur Esaias dicens: omnis caro foenum, (quia) et alibi: et uidebit omnis caro salutare dei. exitus, non substantias, distinxit. quis enim iudicium dei non in sententia duplici statuit salutis et poenae? omnis igitur caro foenum. quae igni destinatur, et omnis caro uidebit salutare dei, quae saluti ordinatur. ego me scio neque alia carne adulteria commisisse neque nunc alia carne ad continentiam eniti. si quis est bina pudenda circumferens, potest iam et demere foenum carnis inmundae et solam sibi reseruare quae uisura sit dei salutare. sed cum idem prophetes etiam nationes ostendat nunc deputatas uelut puluerem et saliuam nunc speraturas et credituras in nomen et in brachium domini. numquid et de nationibus fallimur? et aliae quidem sunt crediturae aliae in puluerem deputatae ex diuersitate substantiae? sed et Christus intra oceanum et de isto caelo, quod nobis incubat, uerum lumen nationibus offulsit, — et ipsi Valentiniani hic errare didicerunt — nec alia erit forma nationum credentium nisi quae et non credentium de carne, de anima. sicut ergo easdem nationes non genere sed sorte distinxit, ita et carnes. quae in ipsis nationibus una substantia est, non materia sed mercede disiunxit.

### English translation (Claude)

“But the coming age,” you say, “belongs to another arrangement, an eternal one; therefore the substance of this age, which is not eternal, cannot possess things so different.” Clearly so, if man were made for the future arrangement and not the arrangement for man. But the apostle, writing, “whether the world or life or death or things to come or things present, all are yours,” makes the same men heirs of things to come as well. Isaiah grants you nothing when he says, “All flesh is grass,” since elsewhere he also says, “And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.” He distinguished outcomes, not substances. For who does not set the judgment of God in a double sentence, of salvation and of punishment? So “all flesh is grass” is the flesh destined for fire, and “all flesh shall see the salvation of God” is the flesh appointed to salvation. I know that I did not commit adulteries in one flesh and now strive after continence in another. If anyone carries around two sets of private parts, he may well cut away the grass of the unclean flesh and keep for himself only the flesh that is to see the salvation of God. But since the same prophet shows the nations now reckoned as dust and spittle, and now about to hope and believe in the name and in the arm of the Lord, are we mistaken about the nations too? Are some nations to believe and others reckoned as dust because of a difference of substance? But Christ also shone as the true light to the nations within the ocean and from this sky that lies over us (even the Valentinians learned to err here), nor will the believing nations have any other form than the unbelieving, that of flesh and soul. As, then, he distinguished the same nations not by kind but by lot, so also the flesh, which is one substance in those very nations: he separated it not by its material but by its reward.

### Scripture references

- 1 Cor 3:22: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 40:6: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 40:5: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 3:6: quotation, medium confidence
- Isa 40:15: allusion, high confidence
- Isa 42:4: allusion, medium confidence
- Isa 51:5: allusion, medium confidence
- John 1:9: echo, medium confidence
- Isa 42:6: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations and allusions: 1 Cor 3:22; Isa 40:6; Isa 40:5 (cf. Luke 3:6); the nations as dust and spittle, Isa 40:15 (Greek form); the nations hoping in his name and arm, Isa 42:4; 51:5; the true light, John 1:9; Isa 42:6. “Even the Valentinians learned to err here” is obscure; it probably means that they too came to their errors in this earthly world, under this sky, and so in the same flesh. “Since” renders the editor’s supplement (quia).

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 59 (CSEL 47:119–120; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/53/#p-59).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 60

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/53/#p-60
- Source: CSEL 47:120–122
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Even if the bodily organs lose their present functions in the resurrection, they will still exist, since the whole man must stand before God’s judgment, as a restored ship remains a ship even when laid up.

### Latin text

Ecce autem, ut adhuc controuersiam exaggerent carni. maxime eidem, de officiis quoque membrorum argumentantur, aut et ipsa dicentes permanere debere in suis operibus et fructibus, ut eidem corpulentiae adscripta, aut, quia constet discessura esse officia membrorum, corpulentiam quoque t eradant, cuius scilicet perseuerantia credenda non sit utique sine membris, quia nec membra credenda sint sine officiis. quo enim iam. inquiunt, spelunca haec oris et dentium statio et gulae lapsus et competum stomachi et aluei gurges et intestinorum perplexa proceritas, cum esui et potui locus non erit? quo huiusmodi membra admittunt subigunt deuoluunt diuidunt digerunt egerunt? quo manus ipsae et pedes et operarii quique artus, cum uictus etiam cura cessabit? quo renes, conscii seminum, et reliqua genitalium utriusque sexus et conceptuum stabula et uberum fontes, discessuro concubitu et fetu et educatu? postremo quo totum corpus, totum scilicet uacaturum? ad haec ergo praestruximus non oportere committi futurorum atque praesentium dispositiones, intercessura tunc demutatione, et nunc superstruimus officia ista membrorum necessitatibus uitae huius eo usque consistere, donec et ipsa uita transferatur a temporalitate in aeternitatem, sicut animale corpus in spiritale, dum mortale istud induet inmortalitatem et corruptiuum istud incorruptelam; et ipsa autem liberata tunc uita a necessitatibus liberabuntur et membra ab officiis, nec ideo non erunt necessaria. licet enim officiis liberentur, sed iudiciis retinentur, ut quisque referat per corpus prout gessit. saluum enim hominem tribunal dei exigit; saluum uero sine membris non licet esse, ex quorum non officiis sed substantiis constat, nisi forte et nauem sine carina, sine prora, sine puppi, sine compaginis totius incolomitate saluam adseuerabis. et tamen nauem procella dissipatam uel carie dissolutam redactis et recuratis omnibus membris eandem saepe conspeximus, etiam titulo restitutionis gloriantem: de dei artificio et arbitrio et iure torquemur? porro si diues dominus et liberalis adfectui aut gloriae suae praestans solam nauis restitutionem hactenus eam uoluerit operari, idcirco tu negabis necessariam illi compaginem pristinam, ut exinde iam uacaturam, cum soli saluti nauis sine operatione conueniat? igitur hoc tantummodo discere sufficit, cum dominus hominem saluti destinando carnem destinarit, an eandem uelit denuo esse. quam non debebis ex futura membrorum uacatione praescribere denuo esse non posse. licet enim esse quid denuo et nihilominus uacare. nec potest autem dici uacare, si non sit. at enim si sit, poterit et non uacare; nihil enim apud deum uacabit.

### English translation (Claude)

But see how, to heap the controversy still higher against the flesh, and especially against the same flesh, they argue also from the functions of the members: either saying that these too must remain in their works and fruits, as belonging to the same bodily frame; or else, since it is agreed that the functions of the members will cease, they would erase the bodily frame as well, whose continuance is surely not to be believed without members, since the members are not to be believed without functions. “What use then,” they say, “will this cave of the mouth be, the station of the teeth, the slide of the gullet, the crossroads of the stomach, the whirlpool of the belly, the tangled length of the intestines, when there will be no place for eating and drinking? What use are members of this kind, which take in, work over, roll down, divide, digest, and void? What use the hands themselves and the feet and all the working limbs, when even the care of food will cease? What use the kidneys, privy to the seed, and the rest of the genitals of both sexes, the stalls of conception and the fountains of the breasts, when intercourse and offspring and nursing will depart? Lastly, what use the whole body, since the whole will surely be idle?” To this, then, we have already laid the foundation that the arrangements of the future and the present must not be set against each other, since a change will then intervene; and now we build on it that these functions of the members exist for the necessities of this life only until life itself is transferred from time into eternity, as the animal body into the spiritual, when “this mortal shall put on immortality and this corruptible incorruption.” And when life itself is then freed from necessities, the members too will be freed from their functions; yet they will not for that reason be unnecessary. For though they are freed from their functions, they are kept for judgment, “that each may receive through the body according to what he has done.” For the tribunal of God requires the man whole; but he cannot be whole without the members, of whose substances, not functions, he consists; unless perhaps you will also maintain that a ship is whole without keel, without prow, without stern, without the soundness of its whole framework. And yet we have often seen a ship broken up by a storm or decayed with rot, with all its members brought back and repaired, the same ship, even glorying in the title of its restoration. Are we tormented about the craft, the will, and the right of God? Now if a rich and generous master, bestowing it out of affection or for his own glory, should wish to carry out only the restoration of the ship, and no more, will you therefore deny that its former framework is necessary to him, as being idle from then on, since only the preservation of the ship, without its being worked, is what he intends? It is enough, then, to learn only this: when the Lord destined the flesh by destining man for salvation, does he will it to be the same again? And you ought not to lay it down, from the future idleness of the members, that it cannot be again. For a thing may exist again and nonetheless be idle. Indeed it cannot even be said to be idle if it does not exist. But if it exists, it may also not be idle; for with God nothing will be idle.

### Scripture references

- 1 Cor 15:44: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:53: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 5:10: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: 1 Cor 15:44, 53; 2 Cor 5:10. The digital text has a stray “t” before eradant (“they would erase”), perhaps a mark of corruption in the edition; translated as it stands. The catalogue of organs is the opponents’ mockery, rendered with its rhetoric.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 60 (CSEL 47:120–122; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/53/#p-60).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 61

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/53/#p-61
- Source: CSEL 47:122–123
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The bodily organs have higher uses than eating and procreation, and fasting, continence, and virginity already show that they can be idle without the person ceasing to be whole.

### Latin text

Sed accepisti, homo, os ad uorandum atque potandum: cur non potius ad eloquendum, ut a ceteris animalibus distes? cur non potius ad praedicandum deum, ut etiam hominibus antistes? denique Adam ante nomina animalibus enuntiauit quam de arbore decerpsit, ante etiam prophetauit quam uorauit sed accepisti dentes ad macellum corrodendum: cur non potius ad omnem hiatum et rictum tuum coronandum? cur non ad pulsus linguae temperandos, ad uocis articulos offensione signandos? denique et edentulos et audi et uide, ut honorem oris et organum dentium quaeras. forata sunt inferna in uiro et in femina, nimirum qua libidines fluitent: cur non magis. qua defluxurae colentur? est adhuc feminis intus, quo semina congerantur: an quo sanguinis onera secedant, quem pigrior sexus discutere non sufficit? dicenda enim et haec, quatenus quae uolunt et quorum uolunt et qualiter uolunt officia membrorum ludibriose de industria suffundendae resurrectionis oblatrant, non recogitantes ipsas prius causas necessitatis tunc uacaturas, cibi famem, et potus sitim, et concubitus genituram, et operationis uictum. sublata enim morte neque uictus fulcimenta ad praesidia uitae neque generis subparatura grauis erit membris. ceterum et hodie uacare intestinis et pudendis licebit. quadraginta diebus Moyses et Helias ieiunio functi solo deo alebantur. iam tunc enim dedicabatur: non in pane uiuet homo sed in dei uerbo. ecce uirtutis futurae liniamenta. nos quoque, ut possumus, os cibo excusamus; etiam sexum a congressione subducimus. quot spadones uoluntarii? quot uirgines Christo maritatae? quot steriles utriusque naturae infructuosis genitalibus structi? nam si et hic iam uacare est et officia et emolumenta membrorum temporali uacatione, ut in temporali dispositione, nec homo tamen minus saluus est, proinde homine saluo, et quidem magis tunc ut in aeterna dispositione, magis non desiderabimus quae iam hic non desiderare consueuimus.

### English translation (Claude)

But, O man, you received a mouth for devouring and drinking: why not rather for speaking, that you may differ from the other animals? Why not rather for proclaiming God, that you may be foremost even among men? In fact Adam uttered names for the animals before he plucked from the tree; he also prophesied before he ate. But you received teeth for gnawing the meat market: why not rather for crowning the whole opening and gape of your mouth? Why not for regulating the strokes of the tongue, for marking the articulations of the voice by the tongue striking against them? In fact, listen to the toothless and look at them, and you will be looking for the dignity of the mouth and the instrument of the teeth. The lower parts are pierced in man and woman, no doubt so that lusts may flow out: why not rather that fluids passing down may be strained off? Women also have a place within where seed is gathered: or is it where the burdens of blood depart, which the more sluggish sex is not able to throw off? For these things too must be said, since they bark mockingly at the functions of the members (which ones they like, of whom they like, and in what way they like) deliberately to cover the resurrection with shame, not reflecting that the very causes of necessity will first be idle then: hunger for food, thirst for drink, generation for intercourse, livelihood for work. For once death is taken away, neither the props of food for the defence of life nor the provision for the race will be a burden to the members. Besides, even today the intestines and private parts may be idle. Moses and Elijah fasted for forty days and were fed by God alone; for even then this was being consecrated: “Man shall not live by bread but by the word of God.” See the outlines of the power to come. We too, as far as we can, excuse the mouth from food; we also withdraw sex from union. How many voluntary eunuchs are there? How many virgins married to Christ? How many of both sexes are barren, built with fruitless genitals? For if even here the functions and the profits of the members may already be idle, with a temporary idleness, as in a temporal arrangement, and yet the man is no less whole, then, the man being whole, and indeed more whole then, as in an eternal arrangement, all the more shall we not desire what we are accustomed already here not to desire.

### Scripture references

- Gen 2:19: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 2:20: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 2:23: allusion, medium confidence
- Gen 3:6: allusion, medium confidence
- Exod 34:28: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Kgs 19:8: allusion, high confidence
- Deut 8:3: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 4:4: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 19:12: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions and quotation: Gen 2:19–20 (Adam names the animals); Gen 2:23–24 (his “prophecy”, before the fall); Gen 3:6; Exod 34:28; 1 Kgs 19:8; Deut 8:3 (Matt 4:4), quoted; Matt 19:12 (eunuchs). “That you may be foremost even among men” renders ut etiam hominibus antistes, which may also mean “that you may be a priest even for men.”

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 61 (CSEL 47:122–123; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/53/#p-61).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 62

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/53/#p-62
- Source: CSEL 47:123
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Jesus said the risen will be “like angels,” not angels: they keep their flesh while being freed from its bodily needs, just as angels who ate with Abraham remained spirits.

### Latin text

Sed huic disceptationi finem dominica pronuntiatio imponit: erunt, inquit, tamquam angeli. si non nubendo, quia nec moriendo, utique nec ulli simili necessitati succidendo corporalis condicionis, quia et angeli aliquando tamquam homines fuerunt, edendo et bibendo et pedes lauacro porrigendo; humanam enim induerant superficiem salua intus substantia propria. igitur si angeli, facti tamquam homines, in eadem substantia spiritus carnalem tractationem susceperunt, cur non et homines, facti tamquam angeli, in eadem substantia carnis spiritalem subeant dispositionem? non magis sollemnibus carnis obnoxii sub angelico indumento quam angeli tunc sollemnibus spiritus sub humano, nec ideo non permansuri in carne, quia non et in sollemnibus carnis, cum nec angeli ideo non et in spiritu permanserint, quia non et in sollemnibus spiritus. denique non dixit: erunt angeli, ne homines negaret, sed tamquam angeli, ut homines conseruaret. non abstulit substantiam cui similitudinem adtribuit.

### English translation (Claude)

But the Lord’s pronouncement puts an end to this dispute: “They will be,” he says, “like angels.” If not by marrying, because not by dying either, then surely not by falling under any similar necessity of bodily condition either; for angels too were once like men, eating and drinking and holding out their feet for washing; for they had put on a human outward appearance while their own substance within was kept safe. If, then, angels, made like men, took on a fleshly way of life in the same substance of spirit, why should not men too, made like angels, undergo a spiritual arrangement in the same substance of flesh, no more subject to the customary usages of the flesh under the angelic garment than the angels then were to the customary usages of the spirit under the human one? Nor will men therefore fail to remain in the flesh because they are not also in the usages of the flesh, since the angels did not therefore fail to remain in spirit because they were not also in the usages of the spirit. In fact he did not say, “They will be angels,” lest he deny that they are men, but “like angels,” so as to keep them men. He did not take away the substance to which he attributed the likeness.

### Scripture references

- Matt 22:30: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 20:36: quotation, medium confidence
- Gen 18:4: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 18:8: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 19:3: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotation: Matt 22:30 (Luke 20:35–36). The angels who ate and had their feet washed are Abraham’s and Lot’s guests, Gen 18:4, 8; 19:2–3.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 62 (CSEL 47:123; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/53/#p-62).

## On the Resurrection of the Flesh 63

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/53/#p-63
- Source: CSEL 47:123–125
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The whole, same flesh will rise, kept safe with God by Christ, who unites flesh and spirit, and the Paraclete’s New Prophecy has cleared away the ambiguities that heretics exploited.

### Latin text

Resurget igitur caro, et quidem omnis, et quidem ipsa, et quidem integra. in deposito est ubicumque apud deum per fidelissimum sequestrem dei et hominum Iesum Christum, qui et homini deum et hominem deo reddet, carni spiritum et spiritui carnem. utrumque iam in semetipso foederauit, sponsam sponso et sponsum sponsae comparauit. nam et si animam quis contenderit sponsam, uel dotis nomine sequetur animam caro. non erit anima prostituta, ut nuda suscipiatur a sponso. habet instrumentum, habet cultum. habet mancipium suum carnem; ut collactanea comitabitur. sed caro est sponsa, quae et in Christo Iesu spiritum sponsum per sanguinem passa est. huius interitum, quem putas, secessum scias esse: non sola anima seponitur; habet et caro secessus suos interim, in aquis, in ignibus, in alitibus, in bestiis. cum in haec dissolui uidetur, uelut in uasa transfunditur. si etiam ipsa uasa defecerint, cum de illis quoque effluxerit in suam matricem terram quasi per ambages, resorbetur, ut rursus ex illa repraesentetur Adam auditurus a domino: ecce Adam quasi unus ex nobis factus est, uere tunc compos mali, quod euasit, et boni, quod inuasit. quid, anima, inuides carni? nemo tam proximus tibi, quem post dominum diligas; nemo magis frater tuus, quam quae tecum etiam in deo nascitur. tu potius illi exorare debueras resurrectionem; per te, si forte, deliquit. sed nihil mirum. si odisti. cuius auctorem quoque respuisti, quam et in Christo aut negare aut mutare consuesti, proinde et ipsum sermonem dei, qui caro factus est, uel stilo uel interpretatione corrumpens. arcana etiam apocryphorum superducens, blasphemiae fabulas. at enim deus omnipotens aduersus haec incredulitatis et peruersitatis ingenia prouidentissima gratia sua effundens in nouissimis diebus de suo spiritu in omnem carnem, in seruos suos et ancillas, et fidem laborantem resurrectionis carnalis animauit et pristina instrumenta manifestis uerborum et sensuum luminibus ab omni ambiguitatis obscuritate purgauit. nam quia haereses esse oportuerat, ut probabiles quique manifestarentur, hae autem sine aliquibus occasionibus scripturarum audere non poterant, idcirco pristina instrumenta quasdam materias illis uidentur subministrasse, et ipsas quidem isdem litteris reuincibiles. sed quoniam nec dissimulare spiritum sanctum oportebat, quominus et huiusmodi eloquiis superinundaret, quae nullis haereticorum uersutiis semina subspargerent, immo et ueteres eorum cespites uellerent, idcirco iam omnes retro ambiguitates et quas uolunt parabolas aperta atque perspicua totius sacramenti praedicatione discussit per nouam prophetiam de paracleto inundantem. cuius si hauseris fontes, nullam poteris sitire doctrinam, nullus te ardor exuret quaestionum: resurrectionem quoque carnis usquequaque potando refrigerabis.

### English translation (Claude)

The flesh, then, will rise: all of it, the very same, and whole. Wherever it is, it is in deposit with God, through the most faithful trustee between God and men, Jesus Christ, who will restore God to man and man to God, the spirit to the flesh and the flesh to the spirit. He has already joined both in covenant within himself; he has matched the bride to the bridegroom and the bridegroom to the bride. For even if someone contends that the soul is the bride, the flesh will follow the soul at least by way of dowry. The soul will not be a prostitute, to be received naked by the bridegroom. She has her equipment, she has her adornment, she has her own servant, the flesh; it will accompany her like a foster-sister. But the flesh is the bride, which in Christ Jesus also received the Spirit as bridegroom through blood. What you think is its destruction, know to be its withdrawal. It is not the soul alone that is set aside; the flesh too has its retreats for a time, in waters, in fires, in birds, in beasts. When it seems to be dissolved into these, it is as though it were poured over into vessels. If even the vessels themselves fail, when it has flowed out of them too into its own mother, the earth, it is reabsorbed, as by a roundabout way, so that from her Adam may again be presented, to hear from the Lord: “Behold, Adam has become like one of us,” truly then possessed of the evil he has escaped and of the good he has laid hold of. Why, O soul, do you envy the flesh? There is no one so near to you, no one you should love more after the Lord; no one more your brother than the one who is born together with you even in God. You ought rather to have pleaded for its resurrection; it was through you, if at all, that it sinned. But no wonder if you hate it, since you have also rejected its author, and are accustomed either to deny it or to change it in Christ, and so to corrupt the very Word of God, who became flesh, either by the pen or by interpretation, bringing in besides the secrets of apocryphal writings, fables of blasphemy. But almighty God, against these contrivances of unbelief and perversity, pouring out by his most provident grace “in the last days of his Spirit upon all flesh, upon his servants and handmaids,” has both put life into the struggling faith in the resurrection of the flesh and cleansed the ancient instruments of every obscurity and ambiguity by the clear light of words and meanings. For since there had to be heresies, so that those who are approved might be made manifest, and these could not venture without some occasions from the Scriptures, the ancient instruments therefore seem to have supplied them with certain materials, though materials that can be refuted by the same writings. But since it was not fitting that the Holy Spirit should hold back from overflowing with utterances of such a kind as would scatter no seeds for the cunning of heretics, but would rather tear up their old turf, he has therefore now dispelled all past ambiguities, and the parables they like so much, by the open and clear preaching of the whole sacrament through the New Prophecy that flows abundantly from the Paraclete. If you drink from its springs, you will be able to thirst for no other teaching; no heat of questions will burn you; by drinking in the resurrection of the flesh as well, through and through, you will be refreshed.

### Scripture references

- 1 Tim 2:5: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 3:22: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:14: allusion, high confidence
- Joel 2:28: quotation, high confidence
- Joel 2:29: quotation, high confidence
- Acts 2:17: quotation, medium confidence
- Acts 2:18: quotation, medium confidence
- 1 Cor 11:19: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations and allusions: 1 Tim 2:5 (the mediator; here “trustee”, sequester); Gen 3:22 (quoted); John 1:14; Joel 2:28–29 (Acts 2:17–18), quoted; 1 Cor 11:19 (heresies must come). “The New Prophecy … from the Paraclete” refers to the prophetic movement later called Montanism, which Tertullian accepted in his later works; translated as written. “The whole sacrament” (totius sacramenti) means the whole revealed mystery of the faith. “Instruments” (instrumenta) are the Scriptures, viewed as documents.

### Citation (SBL)

Tertullian, Res. 63 (CSEL 47:123–125; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-resurrectione/53/#p-63).