1Cor 15:12

“It is plain, then, that Paul knew no other Christ besides Him alone, who both suffered, and was buried, and rose gain, who was also born, and whom he speaks of as man. For after remarking, "But if Christ be preached, that He rose from the dead," he continues, rendering the reason of His incarnation, "For since by man came death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead." And everywhere, when [referring to] the passion of our Lord, and to His human nature, and His subjection to death, he employs the name of Christ, as in that passage: "Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died." And again: "But now, in Christ, ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." And again: "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth upon a tree." And again: "And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died;" indicating that the impassible Christ did not descend upon Jesus, but that He Himself, because He was Jesus Christ, suffered for us; He, who lay in the tomb, and rose again, who descended and ascended,-the Son of God having been made the Son of man, as the very name itself doth declare. For in the name of Christ is implied, He that anoints, He that is anointed, and the unction itself with which He is anointed. And it is the Father who anoints, but the Son who is anointed by the Spirit, who is the unction, as the Word declares by Isaiah, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me,"-pointing out both the anointing Father, the anointed Son, and the unction, which is the Spirit.”

“For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain, because ye are yet in your sins, and they which have fallen asleep in Christ are perished." Now, what is the point which he evidently labours hard to make us believe throughout this passage? The resurrection of the dead, you say, which was denied: he certainly wished it to be believed on the strength of the example which he adduced-the Lord's resurrection.”

“Nor shall an assertion of this kind prevail in the Church of Christ against the exact truth, so as that a lie should be contrived for the praise and glory of Christ. For who does not know that most holy word of the apostle also, who, when he was preaching and proclaiming the resurrection of our Saviour, and confidently affirming the truth, said with great fear, "If any say that Christ is not risen, and we assert and have believed this, and both hope for and preach that very thing, we are false witnesses of God, in alleging that He raised up Christ, whom He raised not up?" And if he who glorifies God the Father is thus afraid lest he should seem a false witness in narrating a marvellous fact, how should not he be justly afraid, who tries to establish the truth by a false statement, preparing an untrue opinion?”

“"Now if Christ is preached that He hath been raised from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?" Seest thou how excellently he reasons, and proves the resurrection from the fact of Christ's being raised, having first established the former in many ways? "For both the prophets spake of it," saith he, "and the Lord Himself showed it by His appearing, and we preach, and ye believed;" weaving thus his fourfold testimony; the witness of the prophets, the witness of the issue of events, the witness of the apostles, the witness of the disciples; or rather a fivefold. For this very cause too itself implies the resurrection; viz. his dying for others' sins. If therefore this hath been proved, it is evident that the other also follows, viz. that the other dead likewise are raised. And this is why, as concerning an admitted fact, he challenges and questions them, saying, "Now if Christ hath been raised, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?" Hereby also again abating the boldness of the gainsayers: in that he said not, "how say, ye," but, "how say some among you." And neither doth he bring a charge against all nor declare openly the very persons whom he accuses, in order not to make them more reckless: neither on the other hand doth he conceal it wholly, that he may correct them. For this purpose accordingly, separating them from the multitude, he strips himself for the contest with them, by this both weakening and confounding them, and holding the rest in their conflicts with these firmer to the truth, nor suffering them to desert to those that were busy to destroy them: he being in fact prepared to adopt a vehement mode of speech. Further, lest they should say, "this indeed is clear and evident unto all that Christ is raised, and none doubts it; this doth not however necessarily imply the other also, to wit, the resurrection of mankind:"-for the one was both before proclaimed and came to pass, and was testified of by his appearing; the fact, namely, of Christ's resurrection: but the other is yet in hope, i.e., our own part:-see what he doeth; from the other side again he makes it out: which is a proof of great power. Thus, "why do some say," saith he, "that there is no resurrection of the dead?" Of course then the former also in its turn is subverted by this, the fact, namely, that Christ is raised.”

“For the canonical Scriptures contain examples of the same manner of rebuke in which what is intended for some is spoken as if it applied to all. Thus the apostle, when he says to the Corinthians, "How say some among you, that there is no resurrection of the dead?" proves clearly that all of them were not such; but he bears witness that those who were such were not outside of their communion, but among them. And shortly after, lest those who were of a different opinion should be led astray by them, he gave this warning: "Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame." But when he says, "Whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?" he speaks as if it applied to all, and you see how grave a charge he makes. Wherefore, if it were not that we read in the same epistle, "I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ; that in everything ye are enriched by Him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge; even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: so that ye come behind in no gift," we would think that all the Corinthians had been carnal and natural, not perceiving the things of the spirit of God, fond of strife, and full of envy, and "walking as men."”

“911. – Having built up faith in the resurrection of Christ, the Apostle now proves by the resurrection of Christ the future resurrection of the dead. First, he proves the future resurrection; secondly, he shows the quality of those rising (v. 35); thirdly, he describes the order of the resurrection (v. 54). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he proves the future resurrection of the dead with a reason taken from the resurrection of Christ; secondly, with a reason taken from the lives of the saints (v. 29). He proves the resurrection of the dead from the resurrection of Christ with this reason: If Christ arose, then the dead will rise. In regard to this reason he does three things: first, he presents a conditional proposition, namely, if Christ arose, the dead also will rise; secondly, he proves the antecedent of this conditional (v. 13); thirdly, he proves that the conditional is true (v. 20). 912. – First, therefore, he says: I have said that whether I preached or others, namely, the apostles, you have so believed. But if Christ is preached by us as raised from the dead, how can some of you, i.e., among you, say that there is no resurrection of the dead? As if to say: If Christ rose from the dead, as we preach: "Since we believe that Christ died and rose again" (1 Th 4:13), no one should doubt the future resurrection of the dead. Hence Rom (8:10): "He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to our mortal bodies." 913. – But this argument seems invalid, since it argues from the greater by affirming. For although Christ rose in particular in virtue of His divinity, it does not follow that other men will rise. To this some answer that it is not from the greater but from a similar. For to die and to rise belong to Christ according to His human nature, and they say, that the argument is similar, as though I should say: The soul of Socrates is immortal; therefore all souls of men are immortal. But it seems better to say that it is arguing from a cause, because the resurrection of Christ is the cause of our resurrection. Therefore, according to a Gloss is should be said: If Christ, Who is the efficient cause of our resurrection, has risen, how do you say that there is no resurrection? Yet one should not say that He is the efficient cause only after the manner of merit, because by rising He did not merit it, since He was already a comprehensor, and lived the life of glory, unless perhaps the merit of the resurrection of the dead be referred to the death of Christ. Neither is He merely the exemplary cause, as some say, but He is the efficient and exemplary cause. Hence Augustine says, On John, that "the Word made flesh vivifies souls and raises the dead. Therefore, it is clear that if Christ rose, the dead also will rise. 914. – But on the other hand, to rise from the dead is above nature; but this is done only by the infinite power of God: therefore, the resurrection of Christ's body is not the efficient cause of the resurrection of the dead, since the humanity of Christ or the body is a creature, although it cannot be said of Christ or of "the man," that he is a creature. The answer is that inasmuch as God or the godhead is in Christ, Christ is the exemplary and efficient cause of the resurrection of the dead through His humanity, as through an instrument of His divinity. To answer the objection it should be noted that the flesh of Christ or the humanity is not said to produce an effect of infinite power, inasmuch as it is flesh or humanity, but inasmuch as it is the flesh and humanity of Christ. 915. – But there is another question: once the sufficient cause is posited, the effect follows at once; therefore, if the resurrection of Christ is the sufficient case of the resurrection of the dead, then the dead should all rise and not merely be delayed. The answer is that an effect follows from instrumental causes according to the condition of the principal cause. Therefore, since God is the principal cause of our resurrection, but Christ's resurrection is the instrumental cause, our resurrection follows Christ's resurrection according to God's arrangement, which directed that it happen at such a time. 916. – But if God had not been incarnate, would men rise? It seems not, because Christ would not have suffered and arisen. I answer that this objection is null, because when something is directed by some cause, one should argue to it, observing the order of that cause. Therefore, it must be said that God directed the resurrection of the dead to occur in that manner; yet another manner could still be found by God, if He willed.”

“Now, if Christ is preached that he hath been raised from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been raised? and if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain and your faith also is vain; as if he said: Your faith in Christ is of no use to you, unless our resurrection also is believed by you. For if ye have believed of one that he was raised from the dead, how is it not to be believed that it is possible for all others besides to be raised? For he that can raise one can also raise all.”