1 Thessalonians 5:23

For that must be living after the world, which, as the old man, he declares to be “crucified with Christ,” not as a bodily structure, but as moral behaviour. Besides, if we do not understand it in this sense, it is not our bodily frame which has been transfixed (at all events), nor has our flesh endured the cross of Christ; but the sense is that which he has subjoined, “that the body of sin might be made void,” by an amendment of life, not by a destruction of the substance, as he goes on to say, “that henceforth we should not serve sin;” and that we should believe ourselves to be “dead with Christ,” in such a manner as that “we shall also live with Him.” On the same principle he says: “Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed.” To what? To the flesh? No, but “unto sin.” Accordingly as to the flesh they will be saved, “alive unto God in Christ Jesus,” through the flesh of cour …

We now come to the most usual cavil of unbelief. If, they say, it be actually the selfsame substance which is recalled to life with all its form, and lineaments, and quality, then why not with all its other characteristics? Then the blind, and the lame, and the palsied, and whoever else may have passed away with any conspicuous mark, will return again with the same. What now is the fact, although you in the greatness of your conceit thus disdain to accept from God so vast a grace? Does it not happen that, when you now admit the salvation of only the soul, you ascribe it to men at the cost of half their nature? What is the good of believing in the resurrection, unless your faith embraces the whole of it? If the flesh is to be repaired after its dissolution, much more will it be restored after some violent injury. Greater cases prescribe rules for lesser ones. …

I have thought it necessary to dwell some time on the examination of the doctrine of transmigration, because of the suspicion of some who suppose that the soul under consideration was the same in Elijah and in John, being called in the former case Elijah, and in the second case John; and that, not apart from God, had he been called John, as is plain from the saying of the angel who appeared to Zacharias, “Fear not, Zacharias, for thy supplication is heard, and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John;” and from the fact that Zacharias regained his speech after he had written in the tablet, that he who had been born should be called John. …

And next to this about the married, I am familiar also with another interpretation of the agreement between the two which is as follows. In the wicked, sin reigns over the soul, being settled as on its own throne in this mortal body, so that the soul obeys the lusts thereof; but in the case of those, who have stirred up the sin which formerly reigned over the body as from a throne and who are in conflict with it, “the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh;” but in the case of those who have now become perfected, the spirit has gained the mastery and put to death the deeds of the body, and imparts to the body of its own life, so that already this is fulfilled, “He shall quicken also your mortal bodies because of His Spirit that dwelleth in you;” and there arises a concord of the two, body and spirit, on the earth, on the successful accomplishment of which ther …

But again, why you would have the soul to be a body, and refuse to deem it a spirit, I cannot see. For if it is not a spirit, on the ground that the apostle named it with distinction from the spirit, when he said, “I pray God your whole spirit, and soul, and body be preserved,” the same is a good reason why it is not a body, inasmuch as he named the body, too, as distinct from it. If you affirm that the soul is a body, although they are both distinctly named; you should allow it to be a spirit, although these are also distinctly named. Indeed, the soul has a much greater claim to be regarded by you as a spirit than a body; because you acknowledge the spirit and the soul to be of one substance, but deny the soul and the body to be of one substance. …

It now remains for me to show how it is that while the designation spirit is rightly predicated of a part of the soul, not the whole of it, even as the apostle says, “Your whole spirit, and soul, and body;” or, according to the much more expressive statement in the Book of Job, “Thou wilt separate my soul from my spirit,”, yet the whole soul is also called by this name; although this question seems to be much more a question of names than of things. …

Ver. 23 . “And the God of peace Himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Observe the affection of the Teacher. After the admonition he adds a prayer; not only that, but even introduces it in his letter. For we need both counsel and prayer. For this reason we also first giving you counsel, then offer prayers for you. And this the Initiated know. But Paul indeed did this with good reason, having great confidence towards God, whereas we are confounded with shame, and have no freedom of speech. But because we were appointed to this we do it, being unworthy even to stand in His presence, and to hold the place of the lowest disciples. But because grace works even through the unworthy, not for our own sakes but for theirs who are about to be benefited, we contribute our parts. …

18. Another charge brought against me is simply intolerable! It is urged that in explaining the apostle’s words concerning husbands and wives, “Such shall have trouble in the flesh,” I have said: “We in our ignorance had supposed that in the flesh at least wedlock would have rejoicing. But if married persons are to have trouble in the flesh, the only thing in which they seemed likely to have pleasure, what motive will be left to make women marry? for, besides having trouble in spirit and soul, they will also have it even in the flesh.” Do I condemn marriage if I enumerate its troubles, such as the crying of infants, the death of children, the chance of abortion, domestic losses, and so forth? Whilst Damasus of holy memory was still living, I wrote a book against Helvidius “On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary,” in which, duly to extol the bliss of virginity, I was forced to say …

(12) What is the meaning of 1 Thes. v. 23 ?

23. Hold fast these traditions undefiled and, keep yourselves free from offence. Sever not yourselves from the Communion; deprive not yourselves, through the pollution of sins, of these Holy and Spiritual Mysteries. And the God of peace sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit, and soul, and body be preserved entire without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ : To whom be glory and honour and might, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.

3. Who would not grieve over such things and say, “How is the faithful city become an harlot?” How would not the Lord Himself say to some of those who are now walking in the spirit of Jeremiah, “Hast thou seen what the virgin of Israel has done to me?” I betrothed her to me in trust, in purity, in righteousness, in judgment, in pity, and in mercy; as I promised her through Hosea the prophet. But she loved strangers, and while I, her husband, was yet alive, she is called adulteress, and is not afraid to belong to another husband. …

25. For as the Father sanctifies, so, too, the Son sanctifies, and the Holy Spirit sanctifies. The Father sanctifies according to that which is written: “The God of peace sanctify you, and may your spirit, soul, and body be preserved entire without blame in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.” And elsewhere the Son says: “Father, sanctify them in the truth.”