Eranistes 1 part 9/13

ORTH. But we have distinctly demonstrated that in no way is it possible for that which is by nature immortal to partake of death.

For neither did the soul, though created together with the body and joined to it and sharing in its sin, share death with it, solely on account of the immortality of its nature.

But let us consider this same point in yet another way.

ERAN. Nothing hinders us from setting every means in motion, so as to find out the truth.

ORTH. Let us then inquire in this manner.

We say that of virtue and of vice there are some who are teachers, and some who are the disciples of these very ones? ERAN. We do say so.

ORTH. And do we say that the teacher of virtue is worthy of greater recompense? ERAN. Certainly.

ORTH. And likewise do you say that the teacher of vice is worthy of double and treble punishment? ERAN. True.

For he himself is both the father and the teacher of all vice.

ORTH. And who then were the first of men to become his disciples? ERAN. Adam and Eve.

ORTH. And who received the sentence of death? ERAN. Adam and all his race.

ORTH. So the disciples paid the penalty for that in which they were evilly taught;

but the teacher, whom we just now said to be worthy of double and treble punishment, escaped the penalty? ERAN. It seems so.

ORTH. But nevertheless, even though these things have come about thus, we both know and name the Judge as just.

ORTH. Why then, being just, did he not exact from that one the reckoning for his evil teaching? ERAN. He prepared for him the unquenchable flame of Gehenna.

For he says, Depart, ye cursed, into the eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. But here, on this account, he did not share death with his disciples, as having a nature that is immortal.

ORTH. So then not even those who have transgressed in the greatest matters are able to partake of death, if they should have an immortal nature.

ORTH. If then not even the very inventor and teacher of vice partook of death, on account of the immortality of his nature, how do you not shudder in saying that the fountain of immortality and righteousness partook of death? ERAN. If we said that he underwent the passion unwillingly, the accusation you bring against us would have a just pretext.

For it was of his own will that he suffered, and it was because he willed it that he partook of death.

ORTH. It seems that you have altogether been ignorant of the divine nature.

For the Lord God wills none of the things that are not natural to him, but all that he wills he is able to do.

And he wills the things that are suitable and fitting to his own nature.

ERAN. We have learned that all things are possible to God.

ORTH. In declaring this without qualification, you include in your statement even the things that belong to the portion of the devil.

For he who says absolutely all things has spoken at once of both the good things and the things contrary to these.

ERAN. Did not then the noble Job say without qualification, I know that thou canst do all things, and nothing is impossible to thee? ORTH. If you would read what the righteous man said before these words, you would find from those the intent of these.

Remember that thou didst fashion me as clay, and thou turnest me again into earth;

and thou didst grant life and mercy with me, and thy visitation preserved my spirit. To these he adds, Having these things in myself, I know that thou canst do all things, and nothing is impossible to thee. Therefore did he say that God, the God of all, is able to do all that is consistent with these things, and that befits the undefiled nature? ERAN. Nothing is impossible to the almighty God.

ORTH. Then, according to your definition, sinning too is possible to the almighty God.

ORTH. On what account then does he not will it? ERAN. Because sinning is alien to that nature.

ORTH. There are then many things he cannot do;

for there are many kinds of transgressions.

ERAN. None of such things is either an object of will or possible to God.

ORTH. Nor indeed those things that are contrary to the divine nature.

ERAN. What are these? ORTH. For instance, we have been taught that God is intelligible and true light.

ORTH. But we would not say that he could either will or be able to become darkness.

ORTH. Again, the divine Scripture says that his nature is invisible.

ORTH. But we would not say that it could ever become visible.

ORTH. Nor indeed comprehensible.

ORTH. For it is incomprehensible and altogether unattainable.

ORTH. Therefore neither could He who is become non-existent.

ORTH. Nor could the Father be the Son.

ORTH. Nor then could the unbegotten be begotten.

ERAN. How could it? ORTH. Nor indeed could the Son ever become Father.

ORTH. Nor could the Holy Spirit become Son or Father.

ERAN. All these things are impossible.

ORTH. And we find many other such things likewise impossible.

For neither will the eternal be subject to time, nor the uncreated be created and made, nor the infinite be finite, and all things that are similar to these.

ERAN. None of these things is possible.

ORTH. So then we have found many things to be impossible to the almighty God.

ORTH. But the not being able to do any of these things is a proof of infinite power, not of weakness;

whereas the being able to do them would surely be a mark of impotence, not of power.

ERAN. How do you say this? ORTH. Because each of these things proclaims God to be unchangeable and unalterable.

For the fact that the good one cannot become evil signifies the surpassing greatness of his goodness, and the fact that the just one could never become unjust, nor the true one become a liar, shows his steadfastness and firmness in truth and righteousness.

Thus the true light could not become darkness, nor He who is become non-existent.

Thus, when you have examined all the rest, you will find that the not being able is expressive of the highest power.

Thus in regard to God, the divine Apostle also understood and set down that such things are not possible.

For writing to the Hebrews he speaks thus:

For so, he says, is he true, that it is impossible for a lie ever to come into being in him.

The power of truth, therefore, is signified through that which is impossible.

And writing to the blessed Timothy he added these things also:

'For if we died together with Him, we shall also live together with Him; if we endure, we shall also reign together with Him; if we deny Him, He also will deny us; if we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.' Here again the phrase 'He cannot' is indicative of His boundless power.

For even if all men should deny Him, he says, He Himself is God, and does not depart from His own nature.

For He possesses being that is indestructible.

For this is what the phrase 'He cannot deny Himself' declares. Therefore the impossibility of change for the worse manifests a superabundance of power.

ERANISTES: These things are true and in accord with the divine oracles.

ORTHODOXOS: If then many things are impossible for God, and as many as are contrary to the divine nature, why on earth do you leave all the others according to nature — the good, the just, the true, the invisible, the unattainable, the uncircumscribed, the eternal, and all the other things which we affirm to belong to God — yet say that immortality and impassibility alone are mutable, and concede in their case the possibility of alteration, and grant to God a power indicative of weakness? ERANISTES: This we were taught by the divine Scripture.

For indeed the divine John cries aloud:

'God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son.' And the inspired Paul:

'For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved by His life.' ORTHODOXOS: These things are true, for they are divine oracles.

But call to mind the things we have often agreed upon.

ERANISTES: Which things do you mean? ORTHODOXOS: That we agreed together that the Son of God, God the Word, appeared not incorporeal, but having taken up a complete human nature.

ERANISTES: We did agree upon these things.

ORTHODOXOS: If then He also took a human body and soul, on this very account He was also called Son of Man.

ORTHODOXOS: Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ is both truly God and truly man;

for of these natures, the one He always possessed, but the other He truly took.

ERANISTES: These things are beyond dispute.

ORTHODOXOS: Accordingly, as man He endured the suffering;

but as God He remained superior to suffering.

ERANISTES: How then does the divine Scripture say that the Son of God suffered? ORTHODOXOS: Because the body that suffered happened to be His own body.

ORTHODOXOS: We do not then suppose that the soul also shared in the affliction of blindness, do we? ERANISTES: By no means.

ORTHODOXOS: But we say that the body alone was deprived of the sense of sight.

ORTHODOXOS: And again, when we hear Amaziah saying to the prophet Amos:

'You seer, go, flee away into the land of Judah'; and moreover Saul inquiring:

'Where is the house of the seer?' — we suspect nothing corporeal.

ORTHODOXOS: And yet the names are indicative of soundness with respect to the organ of sight.

ORTHODOXOS: But nevertheless we know that the operation of the Spirit, supplied to purer souls, instils the prophetic grace, and this very grace makes them see even hidden things; and the seeing of these things caused those who saw them to be called 'seers' and 'those who behold.'

ORTHODOXOS: Let us then also examine this matter.

As we read, let us find that passage where the Apostle says:

'Therefore lift up the hands that hang down and the palsied knees, and make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way, but rather be healed.' Shall we say that the divine Apostle spoke these things concerning the members of the body? ERANISTES: By no means.

ORTHODOXOS: Shall we say rather that he was removing the slackness and cowardice of the soul, and whetting the disciples toward manly courage? ERANISTES: Certainly.

ORTHODOXOS: But we do not find these things distinguished in the divine Scripture.

For neither, when it narrated the blindness of Isaac, did it make mention of the body, but simply said that Isaac was blind;

nor, in naming the prophets 'those who behold' and 'seers,' did it say that their souls saw and beheld the hidden things, but it made mention of the persons themselves.

ORTHODOXOS: Nor indeed did it show the body of the paralytic to be palsied, but it named the man a paralytic.

ORTHODOXOS: Nor yet did the divine Apostle make mention of the souls by name, when he wished to strengthen and rouse them.

ORTHODOXOS: But we, searching out the meaning of the words, recognize which things are proper to the soul, and which to the body.

ERANISTES: And in so doing you act fittingly;

for God made us rational.

ORTHODOXOS: Let us then employ this rational faculty also in the case of Him who made us and saved us, and let us recognize which things pertain to His deity, and which to His humanity.

ERANISTES: But by doing this very thing we shall dissolve that supreme union.

ORTHODOXOS: And yet in the case of Isaac and the prophets and the paralytic and the rest, by doing this we did not dissolve the natural union of soul and body, nor did we separate the souls from their own bodies, but by reason alone we discerned what is proper to the soul and what to the body.

How then is it not monstrous, when we act thus in the case of souls and bodies, to refuse to act so in the case of our Saviour, but rather to confound the natures — even though the difference between them is not merely as great as that which soul has toward body, but as great as that by which the recent stands apart from the eternal, and the created from the Creator? ERANISTES: The divine Scripture says that the Son of God endured the suffering.

ORTHODOXOS: Neither do we say that any other suffered;

yet we know, being taught by the divine Scripture, that the nature of the deity is impassible.

Hearing therefore of impassibility and of suffering, and of the union of humanity and deity, we say that the suffering belongs to the passible body, but we confess that the impassible nature remained free of suffering.

ERANISTES: A body, then, procured salvation for us.

ORTHODOXOS: Not the body of a mere man, but of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.

But if this seems to you small and worthless, how do you deem the figure of it to be venerable and salvific? And if the figure is worthy of veneration and reverence, how is the archetype itself contemptible and small? ERANISTES: I do not deem the body worthless, but I cannot bear to separate it from the deity.

ORTHODOXOS: Neither do we, good sir, divide the union, but we contemplate the properties of the natures.

And you too, doubtless, will presently agree.

ERANISTES: You address these things as a prophet.

ORTHODOXOS: Not as a prophet, but as one who knows the power of the truth.

But answer me this also, as I put the further question:

when you hear the Lord saying, 'I and the Father are one,' and, 'He who has seen Me has seen the Father,' do you say these things are proper to the flesh or to the deity? ERANISTES: And how is it possible for the flesh and the Father to be one according to essence? ORTHODOXOS: Accordingly, these things are indicative of the deity.

ORTHODOXOS: And also, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God,' and the things like these? ERANISTES: It is agreed.

I do bear to divide the things that are united.

ORTHODOXOS: To the divine nature, then, as it seems, you attach the weariness? ERANISTES: So it seems to me.

ORTHODOXOS: But you speak in direct contradiction to the prophet who cries aloud:

'He shall not hunger, nor grow weary, neither is there any searching out of His understanding; giving strength to the hungry, and sorrow to those who are not in pain.' And a little later:

'But those who wait upon Me shall change their strength, they shall put forth wings as an eagle;

they shall run, and not grow weary;

they shall walk, and not hunger.' How then does He who bestows on others freedom from want and freedom from toil Himself endure the affliction of weariness and of hunger and of thirst? ERANISTES: I have said many times that as God He is impassible and without want;

but after the incarnation He submitted to the sufferings.

ORTHODOXOS: Receiving the sufferings in His deity, or yielding to the passible nature to endure the sufferings according to nature, and to proclaim by the suffering that what appeared was no phantasm, but was truly taken from the human nature? Let us consider it thus:

do we say that the divine nature is uncircumscribed? ERANISTES: So it is.

ORTHODOXOS: But the uncircumscribed nature is circumscribed by nothing.

ORTHODOXOS: Therefore it has no need of movement from place to place.

ORTHODOXOS: And that which has no need of movement from place to place has no need of walking either.

ORTHODOXOS: And that which does not walk does not grow weary.

ORTHODOXOS: Therefore the divine nature has not grown weary, being uncircumscribed and having no need of walking.

ERANISTES: But the divine Scripture records that Jesus grew weary, whereas Jesus is God;

for there is one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things. ORTHODOXOS: Since, then, the divine Scripture says both that He grew weary and that He does not grow weary (and both are true, for the divine Scripture says nothing false), we must consider how the one may be fitted, and how the other, to the single person.

for it is you who bring forward to us the arguments of division.

ORTHODOXOS: I think that even a barbarian could easily discern this: that, once the union of the unlike natures is confessed, the person of Christ receives both these things and those on account of the union, yet to each nature the things proper to it are fitted—to the uncircumscribed the freedom from toil, and to that which moves and walks the weariness.

For walking is proper to feet, and to be strained by greater exertion is proper to sinews.

ERANISTES: It is agreed that these are bodily sufferings.

ORTHODOXOS: Then that prediction of mine was true—the one which I made, but which you mocked as you pleased.

For behold, you yourself have shown us which things belong to the humanity, and which befit the divinity.

ERANISTES: But I did not divide the one Son into two.

ORTHODOXOS: Neither do we do this, my friend; rather, looking to the difference of the natures, we consider what is fitting for the divinity and what is suitable for the body.

ERANISTES: The divine Scripture did not teach us to divide in this way;

rather it has said that the Son of God died.

For thus the Apostle said:

'For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son.' And he has said that the Lord was raised from the dead;

'for God,' he says, 'raised up the Lord also.' ORTHODOXOS: When, then, the divine Scripture says, 'And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him,' would anyone say that his soul was also delivered over to burial together with his body? ERANISTES: Certainly not.

ORTHODOXOS: Read also what follows.

ERANISTES: 'There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife'; and:

'There they buried Isaac and Rebekah his wife'; and: 'There they buried Leah.' ORTHODOXOS: Neither in these passages which you have now read did the divine Scripture make mention of the body, but of the names, which signified the soul together with the body.

We, however, divide rightly, and say that the souls are immortal, but that only the bodies of the patriarchs were laid in the double cave.

When the history of the Acts relates that Herod killed James the brother of John with the sword, we shall by no means suppose that his soul also died.

ERANISTES: How could we, who remember the Master's exhortation that says, 'Do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul'? ORTHODOXOS: Does it not seem to you impious and monstrous, that when we hear human names we should not always understand soul together with body, nor, when Scripture speaks of death and burial, should we include the soul with the body in our understanding, but should reckon that these things belong to the body alone, while knowing the immortality of the soul, since we trust the Lord's teaching;

yet when we hear of the suffering of the Son of God, we should not act thus, but should scarcely make mention of the body, to which the suffering belongs, and instead declare the divine nature—the impassible and immutable and immortal—to be, in word, mortal and passible;

and this too while knowing that, if the nature of God the Word were capable of suffering, the assumption of the body would have been superfluous? ERANISTES: We have learned from the divine Scripture that the Son of God endured the suffering.

ORTHODOXOS: And indeed the divine Apostle interprets the suffering, and points out the nature that suffered.

ORTHODOXOS: Do you not know that passage of the Epistle written to the Hebrews, where the inspired Paul says:

'I will proclaim Your name to my brethren;

in the midst of the congregation I will sing praise to You';

'Behold, I and the children whom God has given me.' ERANISTES: I know these things, but there is nothing in them of what you promised to prove.

ORTHODOXOS: These very things also indicate what I undertook to show.

For the name of brotherhood signifies kinship, and it was the assumed nature that wrought the kinship;

and the assumption openly proclaims the impassibility of the divinity.

But that I may teach you this more clearly, read what follows.

ERANISTES: 'Since therefore the children have shared in flesh and blood, He likewise partook of the same, that through death He might destroy him who has the power of death, and might deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to bondage all their lifetime.' ORTHODOXOS: I think that these words need no clarification;

for it clearly teaches the mystery of the economy.

ERANISTES: I have seen nothing in these words of what you promised to show.

ORTHODOXOS: And yet the divine Apostle taught expressly that the Maker, having pity on the nature of men—which was not only bitterly snatched away by death, but also throughout its whole life enslaved by fear—worked out the resurrection for bodies through a body, and through a mortal nature dissolved the dominion of death.

For since He Himself had an immortal nature, but justly willed to bring the power of death to an end, He took a firstfruits from those subject to death, and having kept this unblemished and untouched by sin, He allowed death to snatch this too and to fill up its insatiableness;

and by reason of the injustice done against this firstfruits, He put an end to death's unjust tyranny over the rest as well.

For having raised up the firstfruits that had been unjustly swallowed, He made provision for the race to follow after it.

Set this interpretation beside the apostolic sayings, and you will see the impassibility of the divinity.

ERANISTES: Nothing about the divine impassibility has been shown in the sayings that were read.

ORTHODOXOS: What penalty did God appoint for the transgression of the commandment? ERANISTES: Death.

ORTHODOXOS: Therefore the mother of death is sin, and the father of sin is the devil.

ORTHODOXOS: By this, then, was the nature of men warred upon.

For this, enslaving those who yielded to it, both led them to the all-wicked father and handed them over to its most bitter offspring.

ORTHODOXOS: Reasonably, then, the Maker, willing to dissolve both dominions, assumed the nature that was warred upon by these; and having preserved it untouched by all sin, He declared it free from the tyranny of the devil, and through it dissolved the power of death.

For since death was the punishment of those who had sinned, but the Lord's body did not have the stain of sin—the body which death unjustly snatched away contrary to the divine law—He first raised up that which had been lawlessly held fast, and then also promised deliverance to those who were justly imprisoned.

ERANISTES: And how does it seem just to you that bodies justly given over to death should share in the resurrection with the one that was lawlessly held fast? ORTHODOXOS: And how does it seem just to you that, Adam having transgressed the commandment, the race should follow its forefather? ERANISTES: Even if the race did not share in that transgression, yet it committed other sins, and for this reason had a share in death.

ORTHODOXOS: And yet not only sinners, but also the righteous, and patriarchs, and prophets, and apostles, and those who shone forth in various forms of virtue, have fallen under the snares of death.

ERANISTES: For how were those sprung from mortal fathers able to remain immortal? For Adam, after the transgression and the divine sentence, having come under the dominion of death, knew his wife, and was called father.

Having become mortal, then, he was constituted the father of mortals.

Reasonably, then, all, having received a mortal nature, follow their forefather.

ORTHODOXOS: Excellently have you set forth for us the cause of our sharing in death.

The very same thing, then, must be granted also concerning the resurrection.

For the remedy must be suited to the affliction.

For just as, when the head of the race was condemned, the whole race was condemned together with him, so, when the Saviour loosed the curse, the nature enjoyed freedom.

And just as, when Adam descended into Hades, those who shared in his nature followed him, so, when the Master Christ rose again, the whole nature of men will share in the return to life.

ERANISTES: The doctrines of the Church must be stated demonstratively, not merely by assertion.

ORTHODOXOS: Hear the Apostle writing to the Romans, and through them teaching all men these things:

'For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ abound to the many; and the gift is not as through the one who sinned.'

'For the judgment came from one to condemnation, but the free gift came from many trespasses to justification.'

'For if by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one, much more shall those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ.' And again:

'So then, as through one trespass judgment came to all men unto condemnation, so also through one act of righteousness the free gift came to all men unto justification of life.'

'But now Christ has been raised from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.'

'For since through a man came death, through a man also came the resurrection of the dead.'

'For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.' Behold, I have brought forth for you the proofs even from the divine oracles.

See, then, the things of Christ set in comparison with those of Adam: to the disease the healing, to the ulcer the remedy, to sin the wealth of righteousness, to the curse the blessing, to the condemnation the remission, to the transgression the observance, to death life, to Hades the kingdom, to Adam Christ, to man the Man.

And yet the Master Christ is not only man, but also God before the ages;

but the divine Apostle named Him from the nature that was assumed, since it was by this that he set Him in comparison with the things of Adam.

For of this nature is the justification, of this the wrestling, of this the victory, of this the sufferings, of this the death, of this the resurrection; of this nature we partake, and with it there reign together those who have rehearsed beforehand the citizenship of the kingdom.

I said this not to divide off the Godhead, but to state what is proper to the manhood.

ERANISTES: You have set forth many arguments concerning this, and have fortified them with testimonies from Scripture.

If then the suffering was truly of the flesh, how is it that the divine Apostle cries aloud, hymning the divine love toward mankind, saying:

'He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all'? Which Son did he say was delivered up? ORTHODOXOS: Speak with reverence, O man;

for it is on this very account that He is called Only-begotten.

ERANISTES: If then there is one Son of God, the divine Apostle called Him His own Son.

ERANISTES: It was Him, then, that he said was delivered up.

ORTHODOXOS: Him indeed, yet not bodiless, as we have often confessed.

ERANISTES: It has often been confessed that He took a body and a soul.

ORTHODOXOS: Then the Apostle spoke concerning the things that befell the body.

ERANISTES: The divine Apostle has cried out most plainly:

'He that spared not His own Son.' ORTHODOXOS: When, then, you hear God saying to Abraham, 'Because you have not spared your beloved son for My sake,' do you say that Isaac was slain? ERANISTES: By no means.

ORTHODOXOS: And yet God said the words, 'you have not spared'; and the God of all is truthful.

ERANISTES: The words 'you have not spared' are joined to Abraham's readiness of will;

for with that readiness he set out to sacrifice the child, but God prevented him.

ORTHODOXOS: Just as, then, in the matter of Abraham you did not stop at the letter, but by unfolding it made its meaning plain, so also search out the aim of the apostolic saying.

For you will see that it was not the divine nature which found no sparing, but the flesh which was nailed to the tree;

and it is easy even in the type to discern the truth.

for I do not make a rule of doctrine out of the things spoken festally in the churches.

ORTHODOXOS: Indeed one ought above all to follow the teachers of the Church.

But since you oppose these—doing not at all well—hear then the Saviour Himself, who said to the Jews:

'Abraham your father rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it, and was glad.' And consider how the Lord calls His passion a 'day.'

ERANISTES: I have accepted the Master's testimony, and I believe the type.

ORTHODOXOS: Set the type, then, alongside the truth, and you will see even in the type the impassibility of the Godhead.

For there is a father here and there alike, and likewise a beloved son here and there, and each bearing the material of the sacrifice.

For the one carried the wood, the other bore the cross upon his shoulders.

And they say too that the very summit of the mountain was deemed worthy of both sacrifices;

and the number of days and nights agrees, and the resurrection that followed them.

For from the very day on which the bountiful One commanded this to be done, [Isaac] having been as it were slain, on the third day was typically brought back to life by the voice of the Lover of mankind;

and a ram was seen caught in a plant, showing forth the image of the cross, which endured the slaughter in the child's stead.