Lectio 2
Lecture 2
Resurrectio mortuorum
Resurrection of the dead
15:12 Si autem Christus praedicatur quod resurrexit a mortuis, quomodo quidam dicunt in vobis, quoniam resurrectio mortuorum non est? [n. 911]
15:12 Now if Christ be preached, that he arose again from the dead, how do some in you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? [n. 911]
15:13 Si autem resurrectio mortuorum non est: neque Christus resurrexit. [n. 917]
15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen again. [n. 917]
15:14 Si autem Christus non resurrexit, inanis est ergo praedicatio nostra, inanis est et fides vestra: [n. 918]
15:14 And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain: and your faith is also vain. [n. 918]
15:15 invenimur autem et falsi testes Dei: quoniam testimonium diximus adversus Deum quod suscitaverit Christum, quem non suscitavit, si mortui non resurgunt. [n. 919]
15:15 And we are even found to be false witnesses of God: because we have given testimony against God, that he has raised up Christ, whom he has not raised up, if the dead rise not again. [n. 919]
15:16 Nam si mortui non resurgunt, neque Christus resurrexit.
15:16 For if the dead rise not again, neither is Christ risen again.
15:17 Quod si Christus non resurrexit, vana est fides vestra: adhuc enim estis in peccatis vestris. [n. 921]
15:17 And if Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain: for you are yet in your sins. [n. 921]
15:18 Ergo et qui dormierunt in Christo, perierunt. [n. 922]
15:18 Then they also who are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. [n. 922]
15:19 Si in hac vita tantum in Christo sperantes sumus, miserabiliores sumus omnibus hominibus. [n. 923]
15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. [n. 923]
911. Supra Apostolus astruxit fidem per resurrectionem Christi, hic vero probat per resurrectionem Christi, resurrectionem mortuorum futuram. Et
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.
primo probat futuram resurrectionem;
First, he proves the future resurrection;
secundo ostendit qualitatem resurgentium, ibi sed licet aliquis, etc.;
second, he shows the quality of those rising, at but some man will say (1 Cor 15:35);
tertio vero describit ordinem resurrectionis, ibi ecce mysterium vobis dico, et cetera.
third, he describes the order of the resurrection, at behold, I tell you a mystery (1 Cor 15:51).
Circa primum duo facit.
In regard to the first he does two things:
Primo probat resurrectionem mortuorum futuram, ratione sumpta ex resurrectione Christi;
first, he proves the future resurrection of the dead with a reason taken from the resurrection of Christ;
secundo ratione sumpta ex vita sanctorum, ibi alioquin quid facient, et cetera.
second, with a reason taken from the lives of the saints, at otherwise, what shall they do (1 Cor 15:29).
Probat autem mortuorum resurrectionem ex resurrectione Christi, tali ratione: si Christus resurrexit, ergo et mortui resurgent.
He proves the resurrection of the dead from the resurrection of Christ with this reason: if Christ arose, then the dead will rise.
Circa ergo hanc rationem tria facit.
In regard to this reason he does three things:
Primo ponit conditionale, scilicet si Christus resurrexit, et mortui resurgent;
first, he presents a conditional proposition, namely, if Christ arose, the dead also will rise;
secundo vero probat antecedens ipsius conditionalis, ibi si autem resurrectio mortuorum, etc.;
second, he proves the antecedent of this conditional, at but if there be no resurrection of the dead (1 Cor. 15:13);
tertio probat conditionalem esse veram, ibi nunc autem Christus resurrexit, et cetera.
third, he proves that the conditional is true, at but now Christ is risen (1 Cor 15:20).
912. Dicit ergo primo: dixi, quod sive ego praedicaverim, sive illi, scilicet alii apostoli, sic credidistis. Sed si praedicatur a nobis, quod Christus resurrexit a mortuis, quomodo quidam in vobis, id est, inter vos, dicunt, etc.; quasi dicat: si Christus resurrexit a mortuis, secundum quod nos praedicamus I Thess. IV, 13: si credimus quod Christus, etc., nullus debet dubitare resurrectionem mortuorum futuram. Unde Rom. c. VIII, 11: qui suscitavit Iesum, et cetera.
912. First, therefore, he says: I have said that whether I preached or others, namely, the apostles, you have so believed. Now if Christ be preached by us that he rose again from the dead, how do some in 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 Thess 4:13), no one should doubt the future resurrection of the dead. Hence: he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to our mortal bodies (Rom 8:10).
913. Sed videtur quod haec argumentatio non valeat, cum sit locus a maiori affirmando. Quia, licet Christus resurrexit specialiter ex virtute divinitatis suae, non sequitur quod alii homines resurgant.
913. But this argument seems invalid, since it argues by affirming from the greater. For although Christ rose in particular in virtue of his divinity, it does not follow that other men will rise.
Sed ad hoc dicunt aliqui quod non est locus a maiori, sed a simili. Mori enim et resurgere competit Christo secundum humanam naturam, et dicunt, quod est simile argumentum, sicut si dicerem: anima Socratis est immortalis, ergo omnes, scilicet animae hominum, sunt immortales.
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.
Videtur autem quod sit melius dicendum quod sit locus a causa, quia resurrectio Christi est causa resurrectionis nostrae. Et ideo, secundum Glossam dicendum est: si Christus, qui est causa efficiens nostrae resurrectionis, resurrexit, quomodo dicunt, et cetera.
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 the Gloss it should be said: if Christ, who is the efficient cause of our resurrection, arose, how do some in you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
Sed tamen non est dicendum quod sit causa efficiens tantum per modum meriti, quia resurgendo non meruit eam, cum iam esset comprehensor et viveret vita gloriosa, nisi forte meritum resurrectionis mortuorum referatur ad passionem Christi. Nec est causa exemplaris tantum, ut quidam dicunt, sed est causa efficiens et exemplaris. Unde Augustinus dicit Super Ioannem, quod Verbum caro factum vivificat animas, et resuscitat mortuos. Sic ergo patet quod si Christus resurrexit, et mortui resurgent.
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. Sed contra: resurgere a mortuis est supra naturam, hoc autem non est nisi virtutis infinitae, qui Deus est; non ergo resurrectio corporis Christi est causa efficiens resurrectionis mortuorum, cum humanitas Christi, seu corpus, sit creatura: licet de Christo vel de homine, non possit dici quod est creatura.
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.
Responsio. Dicendum quod inquantum Deus, sive inquantum divinitas est in Christo, Christus est et exemplar et causa efficiens resurrectionis mortuorum per humanitatem suam, sicut per instrumentum divinitatis suae.
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.
Ad illud quod obiicitur, dicendum quod caro Christi seu humanitas non dicitur facere effectum virtutis infinitae, inquantum caro vel humanitas, sed inquantum caro Christi vel humanitas Christi.
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. Sed quaeritur adhuc: nam, posita causa sufficienti, statim ponitur effectus; si ergo resurrectio Christi est sufficiens causa resurrectionis mortuorum, statim deberent mortui resurgere et non tantum differre.
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 cause of the resurrection of the dead, then the dead should all rise and not merely be delayed.
Responsio. Dicendum, quod effectus sequitur ex causis instrumentalibus secundum conditionem causae principalis. Et ideo cum Deus sit principalis causa nostrae resurrectionis, resurrectio vero Christi sit instrumentalis, resurrectio nostra sequitur resurrectionem Christi secundum dispositionem divinam, quae ordinavit ut tali tempore fieret.
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. Sed numquid si Deus non fuisset incarnatus, homines resurrexissent?
916. But if God had not been incarnate, would men rise?
Dicendum videtur quod non, quia Christus non fuisset passus, nec resurrexisset.
It seems not, because Christ would not have suffered and arisen.
Dicendum est autem ad hoc quod haec obiectio nulla est, quia quando aliquid ordinatur ab aliqua causa, debet argumentari ad illud, servato ordine illius causae. Et ideo dicendum est quod Deus ordinavit resurrectionem mortuorum fore per istum modum; potuisset tamen et alius modus adhuc inveniri a Deo si voluisset.
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.
917. Deinde cum dicit si autem resurrectio mortuorum non est, etc., probat antecedens, scilicet quod Christus resurrexit, et hoc ducendo ad inconvenientia.
917. Then when he says: but if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen, he proves that Christ has risen, and this by leading to incongruities.