Let us now consider also the phrase, "And he does not stand in the truth." Every single one — and only such a one — who firmly holds sound doctrines, and who, because of the firmness of his doctrines, remains unshaken in his judgments at every season, and is shaken by no circumstance, nor by any bodily pretext, such as hardly bearable pains, or a more violent desire for sexual pleasures, or any cause whatsoever, so as to be moved even to some degree from the good — such a one would rightly be reckoned to stand in the truth.
And let this account extend also to natures outside flesh and blood; for even in their life there are those who rightly succeed in this, of whom it can fittingly be said that they stand in the truth. But if someone is not thus disposed, he does not stand in the truth.
But I observe that perhaps standing in the truth is one thing, and single in form, while not standing in it is something varied and manifold: some, with feet trembling — if I may so call it — and shaking, are struggling to stand in it, and do not yet have this; others, though not having suffered this, stand in danger of coming into it, such as the one who says, "As for me, my feet had almost slipped"; and others have even fallen in it, concerning whom I think it is said: "Everyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces."
Urging Moses to this standing in the truth, the Lord said to him: "Behold, a place by me, and you shall stand upon the rock." For since the rock was Christ, and Christ says, "I am the truth," perhaps "you shall stand upon the rock" is equivalent to "you shall stand upon the truth."
This comes to be present in someone only with difficulty, and after much effort. At any rate, up until "Behold, a place by me, and you shall stand upon the rock," Moses had not yet stood upon the rock. And if someone looks more carefully at human nature, which is not easily able to be purified from false doctrines, he will see that, just as every man is a liar, so every man does not stand in the truth.
For if there is someone who is no longer a liar, or who stands in the truth, such a one is no mere man — so that God could say to him, and to those like him, "I said, you are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High," without the words "But you shall die like men" being applied to him.
If, then, anyone else also does not stand in the truth, it is clear that the devil too, the murderer from the beginning, does not stand in it; and the reason for his not standing in the truth has been stated in this way: "Because there is no truth in him."
And there is no truth in him for this reason: because he has been deceived, and holds false beliefs, and has been deceived by himself — being reckoned worse than the rest who are deceived, in that they are deceived by him, whereas he himself is the very author of his own deception.
It is worth inquiring how it is said that "truth is not in him" — whether it means that he holds no true doctrine at all, but everything he ever believes is false; or that he does not partake of Christ, as those who partake of Christ partake of him who said, "I am the truth."
For those who partake of him partake of him also in respect of his being truth. And for this reason truth is in them. And a third question of this kind might be additionally raised at this point, if some should observe whether one ought to say that truth is not in whoever holds any falsehood at all, even if he holds this alongside many true things.
For just as a statement compounded of countless truths together with a single falsehood is, as a whole, false, so likewise, in one who believes one falsehood conjoined with many truths, the case is, so to speak, similarly compounded — so that one could say that in this person there is no truth. I mean the one who, along with many true things, holds one false thing.
And all three explanations would seem to have some reason on their side. One person will say that "there is no truth in him" is said for this reason, that he does not partake of Christ, against whom indeed he wages war. Another will say it is because he thinks nothing at all truly, but has been utterly deceived, and for this reason is "the devil" and "evil" and worse than anyone whatsoever who merely stumbles — because, whereas the many, amid the many things in which they err, still possess some element of truth, in him there is nothing true at all.
And a third will support the remaining view, saying that it is impossible for any creature that happens to be rational to hold false opinions about everything, and to grasp the truth about nothing whatsoever, not even weakly.
At any rate, the devil certainly has at least this true belief concerning himself: that he is rational, and that this sort of being is a man, and that sort an angel, and that this sort of thing is a body, and this a body of a particular quality, and that something else is other than a body.
But even granting that he neither says nor conceives this last point, still the first points are sufficient to show that it cannot be true of him that he thinks nothing true at all.
We, then, understand "he does not stand in the truth" not as indicating such a nature, nor as establishing that it is impossible for him to stand in the truth. But Heracleon, on this point, says: "For his nature is not from the truth, but from that which is opposite to the truth, from error and ignorance."
"Therefore," he says, "he can neither stand in truth nor possess truth in himself, having falsehood as his own property from his own nature, being by nature never able to speak the truth." And he says that not only is he himself a liar, but his father also — understanding "his father," in the proper sense, as his own nature, since it was constituted out of error and falsehood.
But all this frees the devil from all blame, accusation, and reproach; for no one could reasonably blame, accuse, or reproach one who is not by nature disposed toward the better things. The devil, then, according to Heracleon, is rather unfortunate than blameworthy. It should be noted, however, that just as the devil does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him, so also those who are of the father the devil do not stand in the truth, because truth is not in them. And all such are those who still commit sins.
...even if they claim to belong to Christ; for everyone who commits sin has been begotten of the devil. // 'Whenever he speaks the lie, he speaks from his own, for he is a liar, and so is his father.'
Earlier, at the words 'You are of your father the devil,' we recalled that saying and stated what occurred to us concerning it, inquiring what the lie is, and its father.
Let what will now be said be examined together with those earlier remarks. I consider every evil and deceitful spirit to be a lie, and that each of these, whenever it speaks, speaks from its own resources and in no way from the things of God.
And the father of these is the liar, the devil. Now we shall set forth the source from which we have been moved to call every worse spirit a lie: it is written in the Third Book of Kingdoms how Micaiah, when called by Ahab to prophesy whether it was fitting for him to go to Ramoth-gilead for war or to refrain, said: 'I saw the God of Israel sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven was standing around him, on his right hand and on his left.'
And he said, 'Who will deceive Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said it thus, and another said it thus. And a spirit came forth and stood before the Lord and said, 'I will deceive him.' And the Lord said to him, 'By what means?'
And in the Second Book of Chronicles the same Micaiah says to Ahab and Jehoshaphat: 'Hear the word of the Lord. I saw the Lord sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven was standing on his right hand and on his left. And the Lord said, "Who will deceive Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?" And one said it thus, and another said it thus. And a spirit came forth and stood before the Lord and said, "I will deceive him." And the Lord said, "By what means?" And he said, "I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets."'
It is therefore clearly shown by these passages that, whatever the lying spirit is, all similar spirits would likewise be lying spirits, having received their being lying spirits from the lying father, according to falsehood and evil, and not according to what pertains to essence.
The Holy Spirit, then, or an angelic spirit, whenever it speaks, does not speak from its own resources, but from the Word of truth and of wisdom; which is also made clear in the Gospel according to John, where he teaches concerning the Paraclete and says: 'He will take from what is mine and will declare it to you.'
The lie, however, whenever it speaks, speaks from its own resources; and the lying spirit in the Third Book of Kingdoms that deceived Ahab also spoke from its own.
Note, however, that the name 'liar' is applied alike both to the devil of the lie and to man; for here it is not said concerning man, 'because he is a liar, and so is his father,' whereas in the Psalms it is said, 'And I said in my consternation: every man is a liar.'
We have set forth these things so that we may flee with all our power from being merely men, and hasten to become otherwise, since insofar as we are men, we are liars, just as the father of the lie is also a liar.
It is a similar thing for us to share in one and the same name and in the thing signified by that name — I mean us, if we still remain men, and the devil, who has been called a liar. // 'But because I speak the truth, you do not believe me.'
If we remember to whom this saying is addressed — that it is to the Jews who had believed in him, who were receiving the promise that if they remained in the word of Jesus they would then truly be his disciples and would know the truth that would set them free — we shall be at a loss as to how he says to such people, 'But because I speak the truth, you do not believe me.'
And consider whether it is possible for someone to believe in the same person according to one conception, but not to believe according to another; for example, those who believe in Jesus who was crucified in Judea under Pontius Pilate, but do not believe in the one born of Mary the virgin — these both believe and do not believe in the same person.
And again, those who believe in the Jesus who performed in Judea the wonders and signs that have been recorded, but do not believe in the Son of the one who made heaven and earth, believe and do not believe in the same person.
And yet again, those who believe in the Father of Jesus Christ, but do not believe in the Demiurge and maker of this universe — these too both believe and do not believe in the same one.
But also those who believe in the maker of heaven and earth, but do not believe in the Father of Jesus who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, believe and do not believe in God.
In order, then, that there may not be an immediate contradiction, as though the writer of the Gospel had not perceived such a thing, you will say that he who says to the Jews who had believed in him, 'But because I speak the truth, you do not believe me,' was speaking these words to people who believed according to one conception and did not believe according to another.
And it is likely that they believed in him with respect to the visible, on account of the wonders, but did not believe the deeper things spoken by him; and indeed 'because I speak the truth, you do not believe me' fits those who, though told 'you will know the truth,' had not yet known the truth — as if he were saying: insofar as I perform wonders, you believe me, but insofar as I speak the truth, you do not believe me.
This you might also see now in the case of many, who marvel at Jesus when they look into the history concerning him, but no longer believe when a deeper and greater discourse than their capacity is unfolded to them, but instead suspect it to be false. Let us therefore take heed lest the Word say to us too, 'Because I speak the truth, you do not believe me.' // 'Which of you convicts me of sin?'
The Word, when he sets forth his purpose so clearly that none of his hearers can in any way contradict it, might also say these things to put to shame those who do not assent; namely, that if you do not convict what is said as sinful, you would then reasonably be required to give your assent.
The saying also, according to the literal sense, contains the boldness of speech of the Savior, since no man could say, with the confidence that comes from not having sinned, 'Which of you convicts me of sin?' but only our Lord, who committed no sin, though tempted in all points in like manner, apart from sin, is able to say these things to all who have ever known him.
And I understand 'which of you' to be said not only to those present but also to the whole race of mankind, as if it were thus clarified: 'Which one of your race?' or, 'What man whatsoever will be able to convict me of sin?'
But I know well that no one can. Yet, so far as is possible for human nature, on account of the saying 'Be imitators of me, as I also am of Christ,' one must strive by every means to attain such a boldness of speech, of a pure conscience, toward all men, so that we may be able to say, concerning the subsequent times after the beginning of our faith, to each of those who know us, 'Which of you convicts me of sin?' — even if it is not possible to say this concerning the time before we fulfilled the word.
It is also possible for us, by much diligence, to acquire from some point in time a boldness of speech, so that we may say to the devil, who seeks an occasion against us, and to his angels, at the time of our departure: 'Which of you convicts me of sin?' // 'If I speak the truth, why do you not believe me?'
It is worth seeing what is intimated by the question. And we shall see this if we consider whether those to whom the Word spoke gave the fitting answer, or did not answer at all.
For one might say: 'We do not believe for this reason, that we do not perceive in what manner what he says is truth; and we do not perceive because our eyes, which by nature are capable of discerning the truth, have not yet been cleansed; and since we are such, we are not of God — if indeed we are not yet of God. Rather, the eyes that are capable of beholding the truth are not cleansed, because they have been covered over, or thickened, or muddied, by wickedness.'
But understanding what it is to believe in the proper sense, according to which 'everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been begotten of God,' and perceiving how far we fall short of believing in this way, let us make this our answer, calling upon the physician of the eyes of the soul to do, by his own wisdom and love of mankind, all things needed for our eyes to be uncovered, since they are still covered over by our dishonor on account of wickedness, according to what is said somewhere: 'Our dishonor has covered us.' For he will hearken to us as we confess the causes of our not yet believing, and, as to those who are in a bad state and need a physician, he will cooperate to help us make room for the gift of believing — a gift ranked third by Paul in his list of the gifts, after the word of wisdom and the word of knowledge, to which he adds, 'to another, faith, in the same Spirit'; concerning which gift he also says elsewhere: 'For it has been granted to you by God, not only to believe in Christ, but also to suffer for his sake.'
And to one who attends also to the manner of operation, it will be clear that faith is no ordinary gift of God, when many diverse doctrines are being proclaimed by many who profess to teach the truth — the gift of believing in none but the true alone; for this is already the work of a money-changer, whom you would not err in calling perfect, since it is also written in the Epistle to the Hebrews: 'But solid food belongs to the perfect, to those who because of practice have their senses trained to distinguish good from evil.' // 'He who is of God hears the words of God; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.'
XXXIII. Those who introduce the myth-making about diverse natures, and say that there are, by nature and from their original constitution, sons of God — merely on account of their kinship with God — receptive of the words of God, seem thereby to demonstrate their thesis.
Indeed, by dwelling on this very saying, they carry away with them the uncritical, those who are unable to meet the plausibility in the use of this saying, and who do not see its resolution, which stands thus: if indeed all who received the true light, which enlightens every man coming into the world, did not receive it by virtue of being of God (for if they had received it by virtue of being of God, it would not have been written concerning them, 'But as many as received him, to them he gave authority to become children of God, to those who believe in his name'), it is clear that those who are not of God, before receiving the true light, do not even have any authority to become children of God; but when they receive it, they do not yet become children of God, but receive authority, through having received the light, to become children of God. Then, having become of God, they also hear his words, no longer merely believing in a simpler way, but now understanding the matters of piety more perceptively.
But those who are not so zealous do not become children of God, nor are they of God, and for this reason they do not hear his words, nor understand their intent; rather, they remain in the condition prior to being children of God — that of those who have merely believed — being slaves of God, through having received the spirit of slavery unto fear, and not having been eager to advance and progress so as to attain to that of adoption, in which those who have it cry out, 'Abba, Father.'
For that no man is, universally, from the beginning a son of God, is clear from the saying, 'We were by nature children of wrath,' spoken by Paul, and concerning himself as well; and it is also plain from the saying, 'But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may become sons of your Father who is in heaven.'
For if Paul was by nature a son of wrath, who, beyond Paul, so far as concerns his constitution, is not a son of wrath before receiving authority to become a child of God, and before becoming a child of God?
And if no one becomes a son of the Father in heaven other than by loving his enemies and praying for those who persecute him, it is clear that no one hears the words of God by nature, that is, by being of God; but does so by having received authority to become a child of God and having made proper use of that authority, and by having loved his enemies and prayed for those who mistreat him, thereby becoming a son of the Father in heaven.
Then he is also of God, and hears the words of God, understanding them and acquiring knowledge of them; which is proper not to slaves but to children of God, who have abolished all …… generation, and have taken up instead that which is from God through the spirit of adoption.
At the same time, one must consider more carefully how one ought to understand the saying, 'He hears the words of God,' to which is also similar the saying, 'My sheep hear my voice.'
For if we should take 'hearing' to mean mere assent, then even the soul-ish people who believe for a time will be of God, since it has been testified by the Word that some believe for a season.
But if we should also take 'hears' to mean keeping the commandments, it is clear that one who sins even in one point will not be a son of God — which will not trouble us who say that someone becomes a son of God through change, but it will trouble those others, who are not at all able to show themselves, and those who share the same teachings, to be sinless.
But if we take 'hears' to mean understanding and comprehending, let them show someone who thus hears all the words of the New Testament, so that we might call that one a son of God — provided that his understanding of them does not admit of overthrow when tested against the sacred writings. For we, in imagining that one who is already a son of God is, in accordance with these things, someone great and wonderful, will not be convicted of having interpreted 'he who is of God hears the words of God' unworthily of those who are of God.
And now it will also be possible to demonstrate something that will appear paradoxical, from the contrary line of argument. And what is the paradox, but that someone is more a son of God than another son of God, and that one is, twice over, more a son of God than another?
How this is shown from the contrary, we shall demonstrate thus: in the Gospel according to Matthew, the second woe against the scribes and Pharisees reads as follows: 'Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you traverse sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.'
According to this, then, some are not sons of hell by nature, nor are the sons of hell equally its sons, if indeed one is twice as much its son as another.
But if one is twice as much a son of hell as another, why not also of destruction and death and darkness and the rest, of which those who sin in various ways are sons?
And if it is so in these cases, why will there not also be sons of light, some twice as much as others, and sons of life, and sons of wisdom, and likewise sons of God?
And if one becomes a son of God twice as much as another, why not also manifold times over, and by as many times as it is fitting to reckon the firstborn of all creation to be a son of God beyond the rest of the sons of God — including those who no longer have the spirit of slavery unto fear, but have received the spirit of adoption?
Perhaps, then, since the words of God are thus many in number — not only those that have been written, but also the unutterable ones, which it is not lawful for a man to speak, and those too concerning which John says, 'I do not think that even the world itself could contain the books that would be written' — everyone who hears any words of God whatsoever is already of God; but the more of God's words one hears, that much more will one become of God; so that, if one may so call it, someone who has heard all the words of God — provided this reaches to one of those who have received the spirit of adoption — becomes perfectly and unsurpassably a son of God, and altogether, and out of the whole, and wholly, of God.
But the phrase 'out of the whole' should be understood more fittingly as proportionate to all the words, and all knowledge, and all the mysteries, so that one might say that the one who knows all the mysteries and all knowledge, and along with these has perfected the things of perfect love, has become whole and out of the whole, of God.
But see whether it is possible, following the pattern of 'we know in part and we prophesy in part,' to say of such a one: 'We are sons of God in part'; and again: 'when that which is perfect comes and that which is in part is done away,' then also the perfection of becoming a son of God will come.
...doing away with someone's having become, in part, a son of God. But let it not be left uninvestigated also whether it is ever possible for someone to be, in part, a son of the superior portion concerning divine things, and, in part, a son of the opposite portion, or whether it is impossible for this to be so — in connection with which you will also examine together how many sons are said to be sons of one father: whether on account of ancestors and their descendants, or according to this other supposition.
Having received, then, the authority to become children of God, let us do everything so that we may become of God and hear his words, and let us make progress even in being of God, so that we may also make progress in hearing the words of God, always making more of these things plain, until we contain all the words of God — or as many of them as it is possible for those deemed worthy of the spirit of adoption to contain, both now and hereafter.
And as often as we do not hear the words of God being spoken, that is, do not understand them, so often must we consider ourselves convicted of not being of God. For this is why the one who does not hear the words of God does not hear: because he is not of God, and his not being of God rests with himself — even though there are times when, having already received the authority to become a child of God, and being able, by loving his enemies and praying for those who mistreat him, to become a son of the Father in heaven, he does not do so. // 'The Jews answered and said to him: Do we not say rightly that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?'
It is likely that some, in unspoken murmurings among themselves, often said these things about the Savior, calling him a Samaritan on the grounds that he was corrupting Jewish practices in a manner similar to the Samaritans; for the Jews do not associate with Samaritans, differing from them in many doctrines.
It is worth inquiring how it is that, since the Samaritans deny the age to come, and do not admit even the soul's continuance after death, they call the Savior a Samaritan, though he taught a great many things concerning resurrection and judgment.
But perhaps they say this as reviling him, not meaning that he holds altogether the same doctrines as they do. It is likely that some also thought that he did not teach the things concerning the age to come, and concerning judgment and resurrection, from genuine conviction, but rather that, while being disposed in a Samaritan manner — as though nothing remained in store for men after this life — he put forward the teachings about resurrection and eternal life merely for pretense, for the sake of reputation and to please the Jews.
And they also said that he had a demon on account of his words that were beyond man, by which he called God his own father, and said that he had come down from heaven, and that he himself was the bread of life, far better than the manna, so that the one who ate this bread would live forever — and countless other things with which the Gospels are filled.
It is also possible that 'you have a demon' was said on account of their suspicion concerning Beelzebul, since some thought that he cast out demons by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons, as though he had Beelzebul within himself.
His enemies, then, will know what they mean when they say that he has a demon; but we are persuaded by him when he says, 'I do not have a demon'; for a demon cannot open the eyes of the blind, nor perform these signs that have also been recorded — traces and remnants of which occur even now in the churches, in the name of Jesus.
After this, one might ask why, though the Jews who answered him — not those who had believed in him — attached two slanders to him, both 'you are a Samaritan' and 'you have a demon,' he does not respond to both, but responds only to 'you have a demon,' saying, 'I do not have a demon.'
And see whether the parable in the Gospel according to Luke, concerning the man going down from Jerusalem to Jericho who fell among robbers — whom the priest passed by on the other side, and the Levite likewise, but the traveling Samaritan came to where he was, and seeing him, was moved with compassion, and came to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine — can be brought to bear on this.