For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
Read Chapter 15
Ambrose of Milan
AD 397
Man arose because man died. Man was raised up again, but it was God who raised him. Then he was man according to the flesh. Now God is all in all. Now we no longer know Christ according to the flesh, but we have the grace of his flesh. We know him as the first fruits of those who rest, the firstborn of the dead. Unquestionably the first fruits are of the same species and nature as the rest of the fruits… . Therefore, as the first fruits of death were in Adam, so also the first fruits of the resurrection are in Christ.
For by the sacrifice of his own body he both put an end to the law which was against us and made a new beginning of life for us, by the hope of resurrection which he has given us. For since from man it was that death prevailed over men, for this cause conversely, by the Word of God being made man has come about the destruction of death and the resurrection of life.
If the sojourn of the Lord in the flesh did not take place, the Redeemer did not pay to death the price for us. He did not by his own power destroy the dominion of death. If that which is subject to death were one thing and that which was assumed by the Lord another, then death would not have ceased performing its own works, nor would the sufferings of the God bearing flesh have been our gain. He would not have destroyed sin in the flesh. We who had died in Adam would not have been made alive in Christ. Letter , To the Citizens of Sozopolis.
For since by man came death. Adam brought death on all men, Christ resurrection. The word since gives the reason why Christ is called the firstfruits of them that rise, viz, because by Christ, as a leader of the first rank of God"s army and the subduer of death, the resurrection of the dead was brought into the world.
He tasted death on behalf of every man in his flesh, which was able to suffer without him ceasing to be life. Accordingly, even though it is stated that he suffered in his flesh, he did not receive the suffering in the nature of his divinity but in his flesh which was receptive to suffering.
But if by a man, doubtless by one having a body. And observe his thoughtfulness, how on another ground also he makes his argument inevitable. As thus: he that is defeated, says he, must in his own person also renew the conflict, the nature which was cast down must itself also gain the victory. For so the reproach was wiped away.
But let us see what kind of death he is speaking of.