Origen of Alexandria, Against Celsus

Celsus next assails the doctrine of the resurrection, which is a high and difficult doctrine, and one which more than others requires a high and advanced degree of wisdom to set forth how worthy it is of God; and how sublime a truth it is which teaches us that there is a seminal principle lodged in that which Scripture speaks of as the “tabernacle” of the soul, in which the righteous “do groan, being burdened, not for that they would be unclothed, but clothed upon.”1673 2 Cor. v. 1, 4. Celsus ridicules this doctrine because he does not understand it, and because he has learnt it from ignorant persons, who were unable to support it on any reasonable grounds. It will be profitable, therefore, that in addition to what we have said above, we should make this one remark. Our teaching on the subject of the resurrection is not, as Celsus imagines, derived from anything that we have heard on the doctrine of metempsychosis; but we know that the soul, which is immaterial and invisible in its nature, exists in no material place, without having a body suited to the nature of that place. Accordingly, it at one time puts off one body which was necessary before, but which is no longer adequate in its changed state, and it exchanges it for a second; and at another time it assumes another in addition to the former, which is needed as a better covering, suited to the purer ethereal regions of heaven. When it comes into the world at birth, it casts off the integuments which it needed in the womb; and before doing this, it puts on another body suited for its life upon earth. Then, again, as there is “a tabernacle” and “an earthly house” which is in some sort necessary for this tabernacle, Scripture teaches us that “the earthly house of this tabernacle shall be dissolved,” but that the tabernacle shall “be clothed upon with a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.”1674 2 Cor. v. 1. The men of God say also that “the corruptible shall put on incorruption,”1675 1 Cor. xv. 53. which is a different thing from “the incorruptible;” and “the mortal shall put on immortality,” which is different from “the immortal.” Indeed, what “wisdom” is to “the wise,” and “justice” to “the just,” and “peace” to “the peaceable,” the same relation does “incorruption” hold to “the incorruptible,” and “immortality” to “the immortal.” Behold, then, to what a prospect Scripture encourages us to look, when it speaks to us of being clothed with incorruption and immortality, which are, as it were, vestments which will not suffer those who are covered with them to come to corruption or death. Thus far I have taken the liberty of referring to this subject, in answer to one who assails the doctrine of the resurrection without understanding it, and who, simply because he knew nothing about it, made it the object of contempt and ridicule.

Ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸν περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως λόγον–πολὺν ὄντα καὶ δυσερμήνευτον καὶ δεόμενον σοφοῦ εἴπερ τι ἄλλο τῶν δογμάτων καὶ ἐπὶ πλεῖον διαβεβηκότος, ἵνα τὸ ἄξιον τοῦ θεοῦ παραστήσῃ καὶ τὸ μεγαλοφυὲς τοῦ δόγματος, διδάσκοντος λόγον ἔχειν σπέρματος τὸ καλούμενον κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς σκῆνος τῆς ψυχῆς, ἐν ᾧ "οἱ" δίκαιοι "ὄντες" στενάζουσι "βαρούμενοι", μὴ θέλοντες αὐτὸ "ἐκδύσασθαι ἀλλ' ἐπενδύσασθαι"–μὴ νοήσας ὁ Κέλσος τῷ ἀπὸ ἰδιωτῶν καὶ μηδενὶ λόγῳ παραστῆσαι δυναμένων ἀκηκοέναι περὶ αὐτοῦ χλευάζει τὸ λεγόμενον, χρήσιμον πρὸς τοῖς ἀνωτέρω εἰρημένοις ἡμῖν περὶ τούτου τοῦτο μόνον ὑποση μειώσασθαι πρὸς τὸν λόγον, ὅτι οὐχ, ὡς οἴεται Κέλσος, τῆς μετενσωματώσεως παρακούσαντες τὰ περὶ ἀναστάσεώς φαμεν ἀλλ' εἰδότες ὅτι ἡ τῇ ἑαυτῆς φύσει ἀσώματος καὶ ἀόρατος ψυχὴ ἐν παντὶ σωματικῷ τόπῳ τυγχάνουσα δέεται σώματος οἰκείου τῇ φύσει τῷ τόπῳ ἐκείνῳ· ὅπερ ὅπου μὲν φορεῖ ἀπεκδυσαμένη [τὸ] πρότερον ἀναγκαῖον μὲν περισσὸν δὲ ὡς πρὸς τὰ δεύτερα, ὅπου δὲ ἐπενδυσαμένη ᾧ πρότερον εἶχε, δεομένη κρείττονος ἐνδύματος εἰς τοὺς καθαρωτέρους καὶ αἰθερίους καὶ οὐρανίους τόπους. Καὶ ἀπεξεδύσατο μὲν ἐπὶ τὴν τῇδε γένεσιν ἐρχομένη τὸ χρήσιμον πρὸς τὴν ἐν τῇ ὑστέρᾳ τῆς κυούσης [διάπλασιν], ἕως ἦν ἐν αὐτῇ, χορίον· ἐνεδύσατο δὲ ὑπ' ἐκεῖνο ὃ ἦν ἀναγκαῖον τῷ ἐπὶ γῆς μέλλοντι διαζῆν. Εἶτα πάλιν ὄντος τινὸς "σκήνους" ἐπιγείου οἰκίας, ἀναγκαίας που τῷ σκήνει, καὶ καταλύεσθαι μέν φασιν οἱ λόγοι τὴν ἐπίγειον οἰκίαν "τοῦ σκήνους" τὸ δὲ σκῆνος ἐπενδύσασθαι "οἰκίαν ἀχειροποίητον αἰώνιον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς". Λέγουσι δὲ οἱ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι "τὸ" μὲν "φθαρτὸν ἐνδύσασθαι αὐτὸ ἀφθαρσίαν", τὴν διαφέρουσαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου, "τὸ" δὲ "θνητὸν ἐνδύσασθαι ἀθανασίαν", ἕτερον τυγχάνουσαν τοῦ ἀθανάτου. Ὃν γὰρ λόγον ἔχει σοφία πρὸς τὸ σοφὸν καὶ δικαιοσύνη πρὸς τὸ δίκαιον καὶ εἰρήνη πρὸς τὸ εἰρηνικόν, τοῦτον τὸν λόγον ἀφθαρσία μὲν πρὸς ἄφθαρτον ἀθανασία δὲ πρὸς ἀθάνατον. Ὅρα οὖν ἐφ' οἷα προτρέπει ὁ λόγος, "ἐνδύσασθαι" λέγων τὴν "ἀφθαρσίαν" καὶ τὴν "ἀθανασίαν", ἅτινα ὡς ἐνδύματα τῷ ἐνδυσαμένῳ καὶ περιεχομένῳ τῶν τοιούτων ἐνδυμάτων οὐκ ἐᾷ φθαρῆναι ἢ ἀποθανεῖν τὸν περικείμενον αὐτά. Καὶ ταῦτα δ' ἡμῖν ἀποτετολμήσθω διὰ τὸν μὴ νοήσαντα ὅ τι ποτὲ λέγομεν τὴν ἀνάστασιν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο γελῶντα καὶ χλευάζοντα ὃν οὐκ οἶδε λόγον.