HistoricalChristian.Faith

What will the risen body be like? (Augustine's City of God 22 questions)

Type: supporting argument (off-timeline) · Assessment: plausible — the core reading (the glorified same flesh, whole and identifiable, its every defect healed) is well grounded in 1 Corinthians 15 and Philippians 3:21 and became the mainstream picture; but several of the concrete determinations Augustine draws from it — above all the fixed resurrection age of about thirty, read out of Ephesians 4:13 — run beyond what the texts establish, as Augustine himself repeatedly concedes · advanced by Augustine of Hippo

The claim

we gather this conclusion, that in the resurrection of the flesh the body shall be of that size which it either had attained or should have attained in the flower of its youth, and shall enjoy the beauty that arises from preserving symmetry and proportion in all its members.

— The City of God, Book XXII, ch. 20, link. The advocated interpretation is a single, connected picture of the risen body: it is numerically the same flesh that died, raised as a "spiritual body" (a change of glory, not of substance); it rises whole and personally identifiable; it stands at the prime of life — the age of Christ, about thirty; it keeps its sex (women rise as women); it sheds every defect, disproportion, and monstrous deformity while losing no substance (hair and nails redistributed, not restored to ugliness); reabsorbed matter reverts to its first owner; and the martyrs' scars alone are kept, transfigured into marks of honour.

Who advances it

The picture is Augustine's, in City of God Book 22 (c. 426–427), the last book of the work. He is answering pagan mockery of the resurrection (ch. 12) point by point — abortions, infants, stature, monstrous births, cannibalized flesh, hair, nails — and in doing so systematizes the identity-of-substance reading he inherited from Tertullian and the Latin anti-Gnostic tradition. Nearly every element later hardens into the Western commonplace: Aquinas takes up the same questions in the Supplement to the Summa (qq. 80–85 — integrity, the age of thirty-three, the retention of sex), and the "risen at the prime of life" motif passes into medieval and Reformation piety.

The evidence for

The load-bearing texts are Paul's. 1 Corinthians 15:35–54 gives both the continuity ("this corruptible must put on incorruption") and the transformation ("it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body"), which is exactly Augustine's frame: the same flesh, raised "into the newness of the spiritual body … but still flesh, not spirit." Philippians 3:21 — Christ "shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body" — grounds both the identity (it is our body that is changed) and the glorification. For the retention of sex, Luke 20:34–36 is genuinely on Augustine's side: pressed by the Sadducees, Jesus denied there would be marriage in the resurrection, not that there would be women — "they neither marry nor are given in marriage," a phrase whose two verbs distinguish the sexes rather than abolishing one. And the resurrection of Christ's own body — handled, bearing its wounds, eating — anchors both the same-flesh reading and the martyrs'-scars corollary. On these points the interpretation is not a stretch but the natural sense of the crux texts.¹

Adversarial assessment

What holds. The core is solid and became the church's mainstream picture: personal identity preserved in the risen flesh (1 Cor 15; Phil 3:21), the body raised whole and healed of its defects, and the retention of sex read carefully out of Luke 20. Augustine's handling of the "scattered body" and cannibalism objections is a legitimate appeal to divine omnipotence and to the principle that assimilated matter is only "borrowed" — the objection never had the force its posers thought, and granting God's power to reassemble is not begging the question but conceding the one premise the whole doctrine openly rests on. The martyrs'-scars motif is a modest, text-anchored inference from the risen Christ's retained wounds. None of this requires special pleading.

What is overstated or imprecise. The weak link is the fixed resurrection age. Augustine reads it out of Ephesians 4:13, "till we all come … unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" — but that verse, in its own context (Eph 4:11–16), is plainly about the corporate maturity of the Church, the body of Christ growing up into its Head, not the physical age of individual risen bodies. Augustine knows this: he offers the ecclesial reading himself as the primary sense ("the measure of Christ will be completed when all the members … are added to the Head") before pressing the phrase into service for the age of thirty on the authority of "the world's wisest men." That is a conjecture propped on a secular commonplace, not an exegetical result, and he flags it as such. The same candor attaches to the finer determinations — the redistribution of hair and nails, the exact fate of the aborted ("I make bold neither to affirm nor to deny"), the very nature of the spiritual body ("I fear it were but rash to pronounce"). These are pious extrapolations from the core, offered as conjecture, and should be read as conjecture rather than as taught doctrine.²

Assessment

Plausible. As one connected reading of 1 Corinthians 15, Philippians 3:21, and Luke 20:35–36, the glorified-same-flesh body — whole, identifiable, healed of defect, its sex retained — is coherent, text-grounded, and became the mainstream Western picture; on its central claims it is as strong as the identity-of-substance reading it rests on. What keeps it short of "sound" is that its more concrete determinations, chiefly the resurrection age of about thirty, are conjectures beyond the evidence: the proof-text (Eph 4:13) is really about the maturing Church, as Augustine himself grants, and the "age thirty" figure comes from pagan common opinion, not Scripture. The honest verdict is Augustine's own — certain of the risen flesh, tentative about its details. The underlying identity thesis this argument assumes is weighed on the charge that Origen denied the resurrection of the flesh.

Sources