The Seed Not Vivified Unless It Dies. (Homilies on First Epistle to Corinthians, XLI., Vol. Ii., P. 517.)
But some one asks, how are the dead to be raised to life? With what sort of body will they come? Senseless man, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die first. Whereas the Apostle is everywhere so gentle and humble, he makes use of stronger language in this place on account of the adversaries’ unreasonableness. Nor is this enough but he adds arguments and examples, and in this way gets the better even of the most contentious. He had already said: Whereas by man came death, by man came also the resurrection from the dead; and now he dissipates an opinion prevalent amongst heathens. And consider again how he cuts away that which is most plausible about it. He did not say, ‘you ask,’ but made the adversary indefinite, that, using strong language with effect, he might not unduly crush his hearers. He stated two difficulties: the manner of the resurrection and the quality of bodies. And indeed they were in doubt concerning both points by their words: ‘How can that which is dissolved rise again?’ and, ‘With what sort of body will they come?’ How, with what sort of body? Will it be like this corruptible mortal body, or like some other? Then, to show that they are not seeking to clear up doubtful points but to dispute what is indisputable, he uses still stronger language, saying, Foolish man, that which thou sowest is not vivified unless it dieth.
This is also our way of answering those who call in question what is indisputable. Why, for instance, does he not at once take refuge in the power of God? Because he is talking to unbelievers. Whenever he has to deal with believers he is in no great need of arguments. For instance, saying in another place that He shall transform the body of your humility into becoming conformed to the body of His glory, and showing forth something further than the resurrection, he made use of no examples, but, instead of any proof, brought forward the power of God, adding, according to the efficacy of His power and to bring all things into subjection to Him. Here, however, he sets arguments in motion. For since he provided this one from Scripture, he used the same with authority against those who did not believe in the Scriptures, and said: Foolish man, that which thou sowest; that is, you see from what you yourself do day after day the proof of these things, and do you still doubt? This is why I call you foolish, that you ignore what happens every day to yourself, and that whereas you can work a resurrection, you doubt concerning God; therefore he said most emphatically: That which thou sowest; you, that is, who are a mortal and corruptible man.
And see how the words he uses bring home the point in question. It is not vivified, he says, unless it dieth. Passing over the terms which are proper to seeds, such as the sprouting and growth and rotting and withering, he takes those points which correspond to our flesh, the ‘vivifying’ and ‘death,’ which belong properly not to seeds but to bodies. And he does not say that it is vivified after dying, but what is more, that it is quickened because it has died. You see how, as I am always saying, he brings his argument as a proof against itself. That which they made out as conclusive against the resurrection he makes an earnest of it, for they said, ‘He will not rise because he is dead’. Now, how can you meet this? If, indeed, he had not died, neither would he rise again, and because he has died, therefore he rises again. In the same way Christ points this out still more clearly, saying: If the grain of wheat, falling into the earth, doth not die, it remaineth alone, but if it dieth, it beareth much fruit; so here, in illustrating this example, Paul does not say that it does not live, but that it is not ‘quickened,’ making again the power of God his theme, and showing that it is He Who does all, not the properties of the soil. And why did he not at once speak of something more personal—I mean of human seed? For our coming into the world also begins in corruption just as that of the corn does. It was because it was still stronger in our case than in the latter. What he wants is something quite perishable: the corn was partially so, and that is why he introduced it. Besides, the human seed proceeds from a living person, and falls into a living womb, but here the seed is cast into the earth, not into a living body, and becomes dissolved in it, just as in the case of the mortal body. Thus the example was the more pertinent.
And the sower does not sow the body which shall be. That which has been said so far is to answer the objection, ‘How shall they rise again?’ this is directed to the question, ‘What sort of body will they have?’ Now what is, Thou sowest not the body which shall be?—not a full ear of corn, nor new grain. For here they were not disputing the resurrection, but the manner of the resurrection, what sort of body the risen one should be, whether like our present one, or more perfect and splendid, and he embraces both points in the same example, and shows that it is a much more perfect one. But heretics, admitting none of these things, retort by saying that it is one body which is sown and another which is risen. How, then, could it be a resurrection since a resurrection refers to something sown? What is there wonderful or awful about the victory over death, if one thing is sown and another thing rises again? Death would not seem to be giving back the trophy which he took. How would the illustration be carried out in what they say? Not one substance is sown and another raised up, but the same substance in an improved condition. Supposing that Christ did not resume the same body when He became the first fruits of the risen; but according to you He cast off His former body although it was without sin, and took another. Whence, then, did this other come from? The first was from the Virgin. Whence the second? Do you see what an unnatural argument it is? Why did He show the marks of the nails? Was it not because He wished to prove that the same body which was crucified had also risen again? How does the sign of Jonas affect him? I presume that it was not one Jonas who was swallowed up, and another who was washed to land again? And what were His words? Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again. It is plain that He did raise up this temple when destroyed. Therefore, the Evangelist went on to say that He was speaking of the temple of His body. Now, what does St. Paul say? Thou sowest not the body which shall be; that is, not the ear of corn, which is the same and not the same: the same as being the same substance, and not the same inasmuch as it is perfected, and whereas the same substance remains, it rises in renewed vigour. If this were not the case, He would not have required a resurrection at all, unless He had meant to raise up something better. Why, indeed, should He dissolve the house if He did not intend to make it a more striking dwelling-place? This, therefore, St. Paul said in answer to those who look upon it as corruptible. Moreover, lest any man should imagine that he means another body, he softens the difficulty, and himself interprets it so that his hearer should not in any way bring the wisdom of the world to bear upon the point. What need is there, then, of our arguments? Listen to his interpretation of the words, Thou sowest not the body which shall be, to which he added pertinently, but bare grain, as of wheat, or of some of the rest. That is to say, thou sowest not the body which shall be: the corn, for instance, as we look upon it, with stalk and ear, but bare grain, as of wheat, or of some of the rest. And God giveth it a body as He wills. ‘Granted,’ you say, ‘but in that case the work of nature comes in.’ Tell me, what sort of nature? Here it is God Who works everything, not nature, nor soil, nor rain. Hence He makes this clear, and leaving earth, rain, air, sun, and the labour of the agriculturist out of the question, adds: God giveth it a body as He willeth. Seek not, therefore, to understand or to scrutinise the why and the how, when you hear that God’s power and good pleasure come into play. And to each of the seeds its own body. Why then another? He gives each his own. So that when St. Paul says, Thou sowest not the body which shall be, he does not mean that He raises up something else of a different substance, but something better and more splendid: To each one of the seeds its own substance.