Ambrosiaster : If a seed dies and comes back again with so much additional benefit to the human race, why is it incredible that a human body should rise again, by the power of God, with an equally improved substance? — COMMENTARY ON PAUL'S EPISTLES John Chrysostom : "And he who soweth, soweth not that body that shall be." For the things before spoken meet the question, "how they are raised;" but this, the doubt, "with what manner of body they come." But what is, "thou sowest not that body which shall be?" Not an entire ear of corn, nor new grain. For here his discourse no longer regards the resurrection, but the manner of the resurrection, what is the kind of body which shall rise again; as whether it be of the same kind, or better and more glorious. And he takes both from the same analogy, intimating that it will be much better. But the heretics, considering none of these things, dart in upon us and say, "one body falls and another body rises again. How then is there a resurrection? For the resurrection is of that which was fallen. But where is that wonderful and surprising trophy over death, if one body fall and another rise again? For he will no longer appear to have given back that which he took captive. And how can the alleged analogy suit the things before mentioned?" Why, it is not one substance that is sown, and another that is raised, but the same substance improved. Else neither will Christ have resumed the same body when He became the first-fruits of them that rise again: but according to you He threw aside the former body, although it had not sinned, and took another. Whence then is that other? For this body was from the Virgin, but that, whence was it? Seest thou to what absurdity the argument hath come round? For wherefore shows He the very prints of the nails? Was it not to prove that it is that same body which was crucified, and the same again that rose from the dead? And what means also His type of Jonah? For surely it was not one Jonah that was swallowed up and another that was cast out upon dry land. And why did He also say, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up?" For that which was destroyed, the same clearly He raised again. Wherefore also the Evangelist added, that "He spake of the temple of His body." What is that then which he saith, "Thou sowest not the body that shall be?" i.e. not the ear of corn: for it is the same, and not the same; the same, because the substance is the same; but not the same, because this is more excellent, the substance remaining the same but its beauty becoming greater, and the same body rising up new. Since if this were not so, there were no need of a resurrection, I mean if it were not to rise again improved. For why did He at all pull down His house, except He were about to build it more glorious? This now, you see, he said to them who think that it is utter corruption. Next, that none again might suspect from this place that another body is spoken of, he qualifies the dark saying, and himself interprets what he had spoken, not allowing the hearer to turn his thoughts from hence in any other direction. What need is there then of our reasonings? Hear himself speaking, and explaining the phrase, "Thou sowest not the body that shall be." For he straightway adds, "but a bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other kind;" i.e., it is not the body that shall be; not so clothed, for instance; not having a stalk and beard, but "a bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other kind." — Homily on 1 Corinthians 41 Origen of Alexandria : The power which exists in a grain of wheat refashions and restores the grain, after its corruption and death, into a body with stalk and ear. — ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 2.10.3 Tertullian : Indeed, since he proposes as his examples "wheat grain, or some other grain, to which God giveth a body, such as it hath pleased Him; " since also he says, that "to every seed is its own body; " that, consequently, "there is one kind of flesh of men, whilst there is another of beasts, and (another) of birds; that there are also celestial bodies and bodies terrestrial; and that there is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars" -does he not therefore intimate that there is to be a resurrection of the flesh or body, which he illustrates by fleshly and corporeal samples? Does he not also guarantee that the resurrection shall be accomplished by that God from whom proceed all the (creatures which have served him for) examples? "So also," says he, "is the resurrection of the dead. — Against Marcion Book V