哥林多前書講道集 第 39 章 第 1/2 段

Whether then it be I or they, so we preach, and so you believed.

Having exalted the apostles and abased himself, then again having exalted himself above them—in order to work out equality (for indeed he did produce equality, showing himself to be both one who has the advantage and one who is at a disadvantage)—and having by this rendered himself worthy of credence, not even so does he leave them, but again ranks himself together with them, displaying the concord that is according to Christ.

Yet he does not do this in such a way as to seem to have flung himself upon them, but so that he too appears in the same rank.

For thus it was profitable for the preaching.

Wherefore he was likewise zealous for both: neither to seem to look down on them, nor, on account of the honor shown to them, to be made cheap in the eyes of those under his charge.

For this reason now also he puts himself on an equal footing again, saying:

Whether then it be I or they, so we preach.

From whom you wish to learn, he says, learn.

And he did not say, 'If you are unwilling to be persuaded by me, be persuaded by them,' but he both renders himself worthy of credence and says that he suffices by himself, and that they suffice by themselves.

For the difference of persons made no difference, since their dignities were equal.

And in the Epistle to the Galatians also he does this, taking them to himself, not as one in need, but saying that he too suffices.

For, he says, they who were of reputation added nothing to me;

yet nevertheless even so I pursue concord with them:

For they gave me the right hands of fellowship, he says.

For if Paul's credibility were always going to rest in others and be confirmed by the testimony of others, his disciples would have been harmed in countless ways thereby.

It is not, then, to exalt himself that he does this, but out of fear for the Gospel.

Wherefore here also he says, placing himself on an equal footing:

Whether then it be I or they, so we preach.

Well did he say, 'We preach,' displaying his great boldness.

For not in secret nor in a corner, but we send forth a voice brighter than a trumpet.

And he did not say, 'We preached,' but 'Even now so we preach.'

Here he did not say, 'You believe,' but 'You believed.'

Since they were being shaken, on this account he ran back to earlier times, and adds thereafter the testimony from those very people.

But if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? Do you see how excellently he reasons, and demonstrates the resurrection from the fact that Christ has been raised, having first established that from many quarters? For the prophets foretold this, he says, and He Himself showed it through His appearing, and we preach it, and you believed it.

weaving a fourfold testimony: that through the prophets, that through the outcome of events, that through the apostles, that through the disciples;

or rather, even a fivefold one.

For this cause also demonstrates the resurrection—namely, His dying for the sins of others.

If, then, this has been demonstrated, it is quite evident that the other point also follows, namely, that the rest of the dead too are raised.

Wherefore, as concerning a matter admitted, he presses the charge and raises the difficulty, saying:

'But if Christ is preached that He rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?' And thereby again cutting off the audacity of the gainsayers.

For he did not say, 'How say ye,' but 'How say some among you.'

And he neither makes the accusation against all, nor exposes to view these very persons whom he blames, so as not to make them more shameless; nor yet, on the other hand, does he conceal them altogether, so that he may correct them.

For this reason, having severed them from the multitude, he strips himself for the contest against them; thereby making them weaker and confounding them, while keeping the others more securely upon the ground of the truth amid these struggles against those men, and not permitting them to desert to the side of those who were bent on corrupting them.

For indeed he has prepared himself to employ his discourse in the manner of an onslaught.

Then, lest they should say that this at least is plain and manifest to all, namely that Christ has been raised, and no one doubts it;

yet that this does not likewise compel the other point as well, namely the resurrection of men;

for the one—the resurrection of Christ—was both foretold beforehand, and came to pass, and was attested through eyesight;

but the other—our own—is still in the region of hope;

he establishes it again from the other side, which was a matter of great force.

'For what say some,' he asks, 'that there is no resurrection of the dead? Then surely that other truth also is again overthrown by this, namely that Christ has been raised.'

'But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ been raised.'

Do you see the force, and the invincible contentiousness of Paul, how he attempts to prove that which is manifest not merely from the manifest fact itself, but even from that which is doubtful to the gainsayers—for the present—that manifest thing? Not because that which had already come to pass needed proof, but that he might show it to be equally trustworthy with the other.

'And what manner of sequence is this?' one asks. For that, if Christ has not been raised, neither are others raised—this is consequent;

but that, if others should not be raised, neither has He been raised—how could this have any reason in it? Since, then, this did not seem greatly to hold together in reason, observe how he works it out forcibly, casting in the seeds beforehand from above, from the very premise of the preaching itself: namely, that having died for our sins He has been raised, and that He is the firstfruits of them that have fallen asleep.

For of whom would the firstfruits be firstfruits, if not of those who are raised? And how could He be firstfruits if those of whom He is firstfruits are not raised? How then are they not raised? But if they are not raised, why was Christ raised? Why did He come? Why did He take flesh, if He was not about to raise flesh? For He had no need of it Himself, but did it for our sakes.

But these things he sets forth later as he proceeds; for the present he says:

'If the dead rise not, neither has Christ been raised;'

as though the one were bound up with the other;

for if He was not about to rise us up, neither would He have done that other thing.

Do you see how, little by little, the whole economy is overturned by their words and by their unbelief concerning the resurrection? But for the present he says nothing about the incarnation, but only about the resurrection.

For it was not the being made flesh, but the dying, that loosed death;

since, so long as He merely had flesh, the tyranny of death still held sway.

'And if Christ has not been raised, then is our preaching vain.'

And yet the consequent thing to say would have been:

'But if Christ has not been raised, ye fight against things manifest, and against so many prophets, and against the truth of facts;'

but he sets before them what is far more fearful:

'Then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.'

For he wishes to shake their mind to its foundation.

'We have lost all,' he says, 'everything is gone, if He was not raised.'

Do you see how great is the mystery of the economy? For if, having died, He had not power to rise again, then neither has sin been loosed, nor has death been abolished, nor the curse

done away; and not only did we preach empty things, but ye also believed empty things.

And not by this alone does he show the absurdity of these wicked doctrines, but he contends further, saying:

'Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we witnessed against God that He raised up Christ, whom He raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.'

But if this is absurd—for it is an accusation against God and a calumny—and if He did not raise Him, as ye say, not this alone, but other absurdities also will follow.

And again he establishes these very points, and takes them up, saying:

'For if the dead rise not, neither has Christ been raised.'

For if He was not about to do this, neither would He have come at all.

But he does not say this; rather he speaks of the end, His resurrection, drawing all men by means of it.

'And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain.'

He continually attaches the resurrection of Christ to that which is plain and admitted, from the stronger point making that which seemed weak and doubtful to be strong and plain.

'Ye are yet in your sins.'

For if He was not raised, neither did He die;

but if He did not die, neither did He loose sin;

for His death is the loosing of sin.

'For behold,' he says, 'the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world.'

Wherefore also He was called a lamb, as being slain.

But if He rose not, neither was He slain;

and if He was not slain, neither was sin loosed;

and if it was not loosed, ye are in it;

and if ye are in it, we preached in vain;

and if we preached in vain, ye believed in vain.

And in another way too, death remains immortal, if He rose not.

For if He also was held fast by death, and did not loose its pangs, how did He set all the others free, while yet He Himself was held fast? Wherefore also he adds:

'Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.'

'And why do I speak concerning you,' he says, 'when even all those have perished who accomplished the whole course, and are no longer subject to the uncertainty of the future? And the phrase, In Christ, means either those who died in the faith, or those who died for His sake, who endured many perils, many hardships, who walked by the strait way.'

Where now are the wicked mouths of the Manichaeans, who say that here he means by resurrection the deliverance from sin? For these frequent and continuous syllogisms, and these inversions, betoken nothing of the things which those men allege, but rather that which we affirm.

For indeed resurrection is spoken of concerning that which has fallen.

For this reason also he continually adds not merely 'has been raised,' but subjoins also the words, 'from the dead.'

And moreover the Corinthians were disputing, not concerning the forgiveness of sins, but concerning the resurrection of bodies.

And what necessity is there at all that, unless men were sinless, neither should Christ be so? For if He was not about to raise us, it were consequent to ask, wherefore He came, and took flesh, and rose again; but our case no longer follows.

For whether men sin or sin not, sinlessness is ever present with God, and our case does not follow upon His, nor does this convert into that, as in the matter of the resurrection of bodies.

'If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.'

What sayest thou, O Paul? How is it that in this life only we have hoped, if bodies are not raised, seeing that the soul abides and is immortal? Because, even though the soul abide, even though it be immortal ten thousand times over—as indeed it is—yet apart from the flesh it will not receive those unspeakable good things, just as neither will it be punished apart from it;

for all things shall be made manifest before the judgment-seat of

Christ, that every one may receive the things done through the body, according to that which he hath done, whether good or bad.

'If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.'

For if the body rises not, the soul remains uncrowned, outside of that blessedness which is in the heavens;

But if this be so, we shall then enjoy nothing at all;

and if we are to enjoy nothing then, the recompense for our labors lies in the present life.

'What then,' he says, 'could be more wretched than we, in this regard?' Now he said these things partly to establish them in the doctrine concerning the resurrection of the bodies,

and partly to persuade them concerning that immortal life, so that they might not suppose that all our concerns are dissolved in the present.

For having sufficiently established, through what went before, what he intended, and having said, 'If the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised;'

'and if Christ be not raised, we are perished, and are yet in our sins;'

he again brings in this also, shaking down their arrogance.

For indeed, whenever he is about to introduce some necessary doctrine, he first unsettles their hardness of heart by fear;

which very thing he did here also, both by scattering these arguments earlier, and by throwing them into anguish, as having fallen away from all;

and now again in another way, and in such a manner as would most grieve them, doing this same thing, and saying:

'We are of all men most pitiable,' if, after so many wars and deaths and countless perils, we are to fall short of so many good things, and our concerns stand fast only as far as the present life;

for indeed everything hangs upon the resurrection.

So that from this too it is plain, that his discourse was not about sins,

but about the resurrection of the bodies, and about the present life and the life to come.

'But now is Christ risen from the dead, the firstfruits of them that slept.'

Having shown how many evils are begotten from disbelief in the resurrection, he takes up the discourse again, and says:

'But now is Christ risen from the dead;'

continually adding 'from the dead,' so as to sew up the mouths of the heretics.

'The firstfruits of them that slept.'

But if He is the firstfruits, these also must rise.

But if by 'resurrection' he meant the deliverance from sins, and no one is without sin (for Paul too says, 'I know nothing against myself, yet am I not hereby justified'), how, according to you, shall there be any who rise? Do you see that his discourse was about bodies? And in order to make it worthy of belief, he continually brings Christ into the midst, Him who rose in the flesh.

For as I said, whenever he makes an assertion but does not state the cause, the discourse does not become so readily acceptable to the multitude.

What then is the cause? 'For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.'

But if it be by man, then by one who assuredly has a body.

And observe his sagacity, how in yet another way he makes the argument compelling.

For he says, the very one who was overcome must fight again for the nature that was cast down, and himself must conquer;

for thus was the reproach wiped away.

But let us see of what kind of death he speaks.

'For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.'

What then? Tell me, did all die in Adam the death of sin? How then was Noah righteous in his generation? How Abraham? How Job? How all the rest? And tell me, shall all be made alive in Christ? And where are those who are led away to hell? For if this be spoken of the body, the argument stands;

but if it be of righteousness and sin, it no longer stands.

Then, lest hearing of a common quickening you should suppose that sinners also are saved, he added:

'But every man in his own order.'

For do not, because you have heard of a resurrection, suppose that all enjoy the same things.

For if in the matter of punishment not all shall suffer the same things, but there is great difference, much more, where there are sinners and righteous, will the distinction be greater.

'Christ the firstfruits, afterward they that are Christ's;'

that is, the faithful and those who have been approved.

For when those rise, all things shall receive their consummation, not as now, when though Christ is risen, affairs still stand suspended.

Wherefore he added, 'At His coming,' that you may learn that he is speaking of that season.

'When He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father;'

'when He shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power.'

Here give heed to me with exactness, and see that nothing of what is said escape you.

For indeed our battle is against enemies;

wherefore we must first exercise ourselves in the reduction to absurdity, which Paul also often does;

for thus especially will what they say be made easy for us to detect.

Let us then ask them first, what is meant by the saying, 'When He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father?' For if we take this simply,

and not in a manner befitting God, He will not possess it thereafter;

for he who has delivered a thing to another henceforth ceases himself to hold it.

And this will not be the only absurdity, but also that not even he who received it will be found to have possessed it before receiving.

Therefore, according to them, neither was the Father king before, when He rules over our affairs, nor will the Son afterward appear to be king.

How then does He Himself say concerning the Father, 'My Father works hitherto, and I work?' and Daniel concerning Him, that 'His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, which shall not pass away?' Do you see how many absurdities are begotten, and things at variance with the Scriptures, when one takes what is said in a human fashion? And what kind of rule does he here say is to be abolished? That of the angels? Away with the thought!

But that of the faithful? Neither this.

But what kind? That of the demons, concerning which he says, 'We wrestle not against blood and flesh, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of the darkness of this age.'

For now they have not yet been altogether abolished;

for they are active in many places.

'For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet.'

Again here too another absurdity is begotten, unless we take this also in a manner befitting God.

For the word 'till' implies an end and a limit;

but in the case of God this cannot be.

'The last enemy that shall be abolished is death.'

How 'last'? After all, after the devil, after all the rest.

For indeed in the beginning also it entered last;

for first came the counsel of the devil, and the disobedience, and then death.

In power, then, it has even now been abolished; but in actual working, then.

'For He hath put all things under His feet.'

But when He saith, 'All things are put under Him,' it is manifest that He is excepted who did put all things under Him.

'And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him.'

And yet before this he said that it was not the Father who put them in subjection, but He Himself who abolishes them;

'For when He shall have abolished,' he says, 'all rule and authority;'

and again, 'For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet.'

How then does he here call him Father? And this is not the only thing that seems to be a difficulty, but also that he is seized with an exceedingly strange fear, and employs a further correction, saying:

'Except him who subjected all things unto him' — as though some suspected that perhaps even the Father should be subjected to the Son;

than which what could be more irrational? Yet nevertheless he feared even this.

What then is the meaning? For indeed many questions lie here one after another;

but strain your minds attentively for me.

For it is necessary for us first to state Paul's aim and his mind, which one may find shining forth everywhere, and then to bring in the solution;

for this too contributes to our solution.

What then is Paul's mind, and what his custom? He speaks in one way when he discourses concerning the Godhead alone, and in another way when he falls into the discussion of the economy of the incarnation.

For whenever he takes hold of the flesh, he thenceforth utters all the lowly things without fear, being confident that it is sufficient to receive what is said.

Let us then see, here also, whether his discourse is concerning the bare Godhead, or whether it is together with the economy that he declares these things which he says concerning him;

or rather, let us first show where he did this very thing which I spoke of.

Where then did he do this? Writing to the Philippians he says:

'Who, being in the form of God, counted it not a thing to be grasped to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man;'

'he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, yea, the death of the cross.'

'Wherefore God also highly exalted him.'

Do you see how, when he was discoursing concerning the Godhead alone, he spoke those great things — the being in the form of God, and the being equal with him who begot him, and he ascribes the whole to him;

but when he showed him to you made flesh, he brought down his language again? For unless you distinguish these things, there is great conflict in what is said.

For if he was equal with God, how did he highly exalt the one equal to himself? If he was in the form of God, how did he bestow on him a name? For he who bestows, bestows on one who does not have,

and he who exalts, exalts the one who was before in a lowly state.

He will therefore be found to be imperfect, and in want, before he received the exaltation and the name; and countless other absurd conclusions will follow from this.

But if you add the economy of the incarnation, you will not err in saying these things.

These things then reckon here also, and receive what is said with this mind.

And besides these, we will state yet other reasons.

Meanwhile it is necessary to say this also, that Paul's discourse was concerning the resurrection, a matter that seemed to be impossible and was exceedingly disbelieved;

and he was writing to the Corinthians, where the philosophers who always mocked such things were more numerous.

For indeed, though in other matters they broke asunder against one another, in this they all, as though from one mouth, breathed together, dogmatizing that there is no resurrection.

Contending therefore on behalf of such a thesis, so disbelieved and derided both because of the preconception that had arisen and because of the difficulty of the matter, and wishing to establish its possibility, he first accomplishes this from the resurrection of Christ;

and having demonstrated it both from the prophets and from those who had seen and from those who had believed, since he had obtained the reduction to absurdity as admitted, he then establishes the resurrection of men also;

'For if the dead rise not,' he says, 'neither is Christ risen.'

Then, having continually turned these things about in what precedes, he sets to work again in another way, calling him a firstfruits, and showing that he abolishes every rule and authority and power, and death last of all.

How then could it be abolished, he says, unless first it cast off the bodies which it held? Since then he had uttered great things concerning the Only-begotten — that he delivers up the kingdom, that is, that he himself accomplishes these things, and he himself conquers in the war, and puts all things under his feet — he added, correcting the unbelief of the many:

'For he must reign, until he has put all his enemies under his feet.'

It was not to set an end to the kingdom that he said 'until,' but to make what was said worthy of belief, and to prepare them to take courage.

For do not, because you have heard, he says, that he will abolish every rule and authority and power, and the devil and the phalanxes of the demons so numerous, and the multitudes of the unbelievers, and the tyranny of death, and all evils, be afraid, as though he were weak;

for until he has done all these things, he must reign;

not saying this, that after he has done them he does not reign, but establishing this, that even if it does not come to pass now, it will assuredly be.

For his kingdom is not cut short;

for it prevails and is mighty and abides, until he has set all things right.

And this usage one may find also in the Old Testament, as when it says, 'But the word of the Lord abides for ever;'

and, 'But thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.'

These things and the like the prophet says whenever he is narrating matters that are being accomplished over a long time and that will assuredly come to pass, casting out the faint-heartedness of the grosser hearers.

And that 'until,' when spoken of God, and 'while,' does not signify an end, hear what it says:

'From everlasting to everlasting thou art;'

and, 'Until you grow old, I am he.'

For this very reason he also sets death last, so that from the victory over the others this too may become easy for the unbeliever to accept.

For when he has destroyed the devil who introduced death, much more will he dissolve that one's work.

Since then he has ascribed all things to him — the abolishing of the rulers, the authorities, the setting right of the kingdom, I mean the salvation of the faithful, the peace of the world, the destruction of evils (for this is to set the kingdom right, namely to abolish death);

and he did not say that the Father does it through him, but that he himself will abolish, and he himself will put under his feet, and nowhere did he make mention of the One who begot him;

he thereafter feared lest on this account the Son should seem to some of the more irrational persons to be either greater than the Father, or some other unbegotten first principle;

and for this reason, gently guarding against it, he softens the weight of what has been said, saying:

'For he put all things in subjection under his feet.'

ascribing the accomplishments to the Father — not as though the Son were weak (for how could that be, to whom he had borne such great witness before, and to whom he had assigned all the things that were said?), but for the reason which I mentioned, and in order to show that all that was done on our behalf is common to the Father and the Son.

For that he himself sufficed of himself to subject all things to him, hear Paul again saying:

'Who shall transform the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, according to the working whereby he is able even to subject all things unto himself.'

Then he employs also a correction, saying:

'But when he says that all things have been put in subjection, it is manifest that it is except him who subjected all things unto him' — bearing here too no small witness to the glory of the Only-begotten.

For if he were less and much more deficient, he would never have feared this dread.

And not even with this is he content, but he adds yet another thing, saying:

For that no one may suspect and say:

'For what if the Father also is not made subject? This in no way prevents the Son from being stronger' — fearing this impious surmise, since that was not enough to show this also, he added out of great abundance:

'But when all things have been subjected to him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected;'

showing the great concord toward the Father, and that this One is the beginning of all good things and the first cause, He who begot the One who is able to do and to accomplish such great things.

But if he has said more than the argument of the matter required, do not marvel;

for in imitation of his own Teacher he does this.

For indeed, when He too wished to show concord toward Him who begot Him, and that He came not against His will, He descended so far — not so far as the demonstration of the concord required, but so far as the weakness of those present had need.

For He prays to Him who begot Him for no other reason than this, and stating the cause He says, 'That they may believe that thou didst send me.'

In imitation of Him, then, here too Paul has used the expression out of abundance, not that you should suspect a forced servitude — far from it — but that he might cast out those absurd doctrines out of abundance.

For indeed, whenever he wishes to pluck up something by the very roots, he uses much abundance.

Thus at any rate, when speaking also of a believing wife and an unbelieving husband dwelling together by the law of marriage, in order that the wife might not think she was defiled by the intercourse and the embraces about the unbeliever, he did not say that the wife is not unclean, nor that she is in no way harmed by the unbeliever, but — what was much more — that even the unbeliever is sanctified through her; not wishing to show this, that the Greek became holy from her, but hastening by the excess of the expression to release her from her fear.

So here too, being eager to destroy that impious doctrine by the abundance of the expression, he said what he said.

For just as to suspect the Son of being weak belongs to the utmost impiety,

wherefore he corrects this very thing, saying that 'He shall put all His enemies under His feet';

so again, more impious even than this is it to think the Father greater.

Therefore he also removes this notion with much emphasis.

And observe how he states it:

for he did not say simply, 'Except Him that put all things under Him,' but, 'It is manifest that.'

For 'even though it be admitted,' he says, 'nevertheless I make it secure.'

And that you may learn that this is the reason for what has been said, I would ask you this:

Is there then any addition of subjection made to the Son at that time? And how is this not absurd and unworthy of God? For this is the greatest subjection and obedience, that God, being God, took upon Him the form of a servant.