Change through corruption vs. change of substance

We remain flesh, but we become gods according to those 'to whom the word of God became' (John 1:14). This 'alteration' is according to both, that is, both that which we others have been altered into and that which was undergone on our account; it is not a turning away, nor having been altered according to the divinity, but according to the economy, according to the humanization. 'Unto the end' therefore, 'for the sake of those who shall be altered'; these ones who are to be altered, while still being in the process of being altered, will one day reach the end of that alteration; for no one begins in order that he might not be perfected, but in order that after many progresses he might reach that very end of that quality according to which he is being altered.

And what is the end, or the becoming god-like, so that all might be? Some take this regarding the resurrection from the dead, saying that those being raised have an incorruptible instead of a corruptible body, and a spiritual instead of a psychic, and a strong and glorious instead of a weak and dishonorable. But Paul, saying, did not say: 'all shall be altered', but 'we shall be changed' (1 Cor 15:51), 'and the dead shall be raised incorruptible' (1 Cor 15:52), since the body is raised according to essence; for from a body an incorporeal thing does not become, but from such a body a certain kind of body becomes, having the change according to quality.

If we take it thus according to quality only, it is an alteration. But if, since the corruptible is not the same as the incorruptible, the corruptible becomes incorruptible, it is a change, a change according to transformation. I do not say that from a body an incorporeal thing has become, but from a corruptible body an incorruptible body. But does the body remain? The body remains, and just as a sinful soul, if it becomes righteous, the soul remains. But the change has happened according to alteration. If, therefore, a resurrection happens according to alteration, the flesh is flesh again, the corruptible is corruptible again; for I am not speaking of the quality of the corruptible or the flesh. It happens according to change.

If, for example, we change the colors of a vessel made from a shell either by painting or otherwise, this is altered; for the same thing remains. But if, having made a vessel from clay, we bring it to the fire and it becomes a shell, this is not an alteration, but a change, not because the clay was cast out and the shell was brought in, but because that thing has become shell-like. Again, the sand and nitre having been prepared by the glass-makers, glass is made...

It is a kind of change, and I do not say that the sand has vanished as if it had departed, or the saltpeter, but rather those things have become natron. And listen to the fact that there is a change: when the saltpeter was saltpeter, it was dissolved upon the passing of moisture, but the natron having come from it is not dissolved. Again, the sand was seed upon the passing of moisture. But when it becomes natron, it is no longer seed. I say, therefore, that this is a change, not from one underlying substance into another underlying substance, but into something having come into being from that which has undergone corruption. The saltpeter and the sand undergo corruption and become natron. Yet the corruption of these does not destroy them into non-existence.

And the matter of the pottery, as I have said, the clay having become a pot through fire, does not cast the clay down into non-existence, but the pot becomes something else from it. Likewise, the bird comes from an egg; for the egg is not cast out from the outside so that the bird might be brought in; rather, that very thing transforms into this, yet it is no longer an egg; for it flies, and it has sensation. The egg has endured none of these things. And Paul has used the name of the seed: 'it is sown in corruption, it is sown in weakness' (1 Cor 15:43). I say: the seed of the animal, when it is a seed, is not an animal. But it transforms itself into the animal; for it is not that an animal comes from somewhere else after the seed has vanished, but the seed itself, first being turned into nature, then from nature into an embryo, and after the embryo, becoming an animal, undergoes birth. These, then, are changes, not alterations; for change does not occur by quality alone. And many such things are to be found.

And Paul himself, using the seeds: the grain of wheat is a grain before it is sown. But when it happens to be sown in agriculture, it becomes an ear; or, as others say, again wheat. But they did not know that what was said is an example. It has been said many times that examples are not made uniform, because they are no longer examples. Again, it is not the same thing to be an infant and a child. Nevertheless, the infant transforms into the child, and I do not say that the child entered from somewhere else after the infant had been turned into non-existence, but the infant itself, through growth and through another quality, became a child, without having reached maturity. And according to age, one is an infant and another is a child, but according to the...