Against Celsus 2.65–2.77

And why do I say to all? He was not always with even the apostles and disciples themselves, or always visible to them, since they could not bear to behold him continuously. For his divinity was more brilliant after he had completed the dispensation; Cephas, that is Peter, as it were the “firstfruits” of the apostles, was able to see it, and after him the Twelve, Matthias having been appointed in place of Judas, and after them “five hundred brothers at once.” “Then he appeared to James, then to all the” other “apostles” besides the Twelve, perhaps the Seventy; “and last of all” to Paul, as to one “untimely born,” who knew how he said: “To me, the very least of all the saints, this grace was given”; and perhaps “very least” is equivalent to “untimely born.” Just as no one could easily blame Jesus for not taking all the apostles onto the high mountain, but only the three already mentioned, when he was about to be transfigured and to show the brightness of his garments and the glory of Moses and Elijah talking with him, so no one could reasonably find fault with the apostolic writings for relating that after the resurrection Jesus was seen not by all, but by those whom he saw had received eyes able to see his resurrection. I think this too, said of him, is useful for the defense of our subject: “For to this end Christ died and rose, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.” See in these words that Jesus “died, that he might be Lord of the dead,” “and rose, that he might be Lord” not only “of the dead” but also “of the living.” And the apostle knows as the dead of whom Christ is Lord those listed thus in the first letter to the Corinthians: “For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible”; and as the living, those who will be changed, who are other than the dead who will be raised. About them the text reads: “And we shall be changed,” said after “the dead will be raised first.” And in the first letter to the Thessalonians, presenting the same distinction in other words, he says that those who sleep are one group and the living another: “We do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, about those who are asleep, so that you may not grieve like the rest who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose, so too God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep through Jesus. For we say this to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.” The interpretation of these passages that seemed right to us we set out in the commentaries we dictated on the first letter to the Thessalonians.

And do not be surprised if not all the crowds who have believed in Jesus see his resurrection, since Paul, writing to the Corinthians as to people unable to receive more, says: “I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” Of the same kind is this: “For you were not yet able; indeed, even now you are not able, for you are still fleshly.” So the Word, doing all things by divine judgment, recorded of Jesus that before the passion he appeared in general to the many, and not even that always, but after the passion no longer appeared in the same way, but with a certain judgment that measured to each what was fitting. And just as it is recorded that “God appeared to Abraham” or to one of the saints, and this “appearing” did not happen continually but at intervals, and he did not appear to everyone, so understand that the Son of God too appeared by a judgment like that by which God appeared to them.

We have made our defense, as best we could in such a work, against the claim that “if he really wished to show divine power, he ought to have appeared to those who insulted him, to the one who condemned him, and in short to everyone.” He ought not, then, to have appeared to the one who condemned him or to those who insulted him. For Jesus was sparing both the one who condemned him and those who insulted him, so that they might not be struck with “blindness,” as the people in Sodom were struck when they plotted against the beauty of the angels who were guests with Lot. This is shown by these words: “But the men reached out their hands and pulled Lot into the house to them and shut the door; and they struck the men at the door of the house with blindness, from small to great, and they wore themselves out looking for the door.” Jesus, then, wished to show his power, which was divine, to each of those able to see it, and according to the measure of what each could receive. And surely he avoided being seen for no other reason than the capacities of those unable to see him. And Celsus brought in to no purpose: “For he no longer feared any man, having died and being, as you say, a god; nor was he sent in the first place to be hidden.” He was sent not only to be known but also to be hidden; for not all that he was was known even to those by whom he was known, but something of him escaped them; and to some he was not known at all. And he opened the gates “of light” to those who had become sons “of darkness” and “of night,” but had given themselves to becoming sons “of the day” and “of light.” And the Lord came as Savior to us rather as a good physician to those full of sins than to the righteous.

Let us see in what way the Jew in Celsus says: “If he really had to do so much to display his divinity, he ought at least to have vanished at once from the stake.” This seems to me like the argument of those who oppose providence and sketch for themselves things other than what exists, saying: “It would have been better if the world were as we have sketched it.” Where they sketch what is possible, they are shown, as far as it lies with them and their sketch, to make the world worse; where they seem not to paint something worse than what exists, they are shown to want what is impossible by nature; so that either way they are ridiculous. Here too, then, that it was not impossible for him, as one of a more divine nature, to vanish when he wished is clear in itself, and also plain from what is written about him, to those who do not accept some of what is written in order to accuse the teaching, and think the rest fictions. For it is written in the Gospel according to Luke that after the resurrection Jesus “took the bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it” to Simon and Cleopas; and when they had taken the bread, “their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight.”

We wish to show how it was not more useful for the whole dispensation for him to have vanished bodily at once from the stake. What is recorded to have happened to Jesus does not have the whole contemplation of the truth in the bare text and the history; for each of these things is shown, to those who read Scripture more intelligently, to be also a symbol of something. Just as his being crucified has the truth shown in “I have been crucified with Christ” and signified by “But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of my Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world”; and his death was necessary because of “For the death he died, he died to sin once for all,” and because the righteous man says, “being conformed to his death,” and “For if we have died with him, we shall also live with him”; so also his burial extends to those conformed to his death, crucified with him and dying with him, as Paul too said: “For we were buried with him through baptism,” and we rose with him. What is recorded about the burial, the tomb, and the one who buried him we shall explain more fittingly and at greater length elsewhere, where it is our principal task to speak of these things. For now it is enough to mention the clean linen cloth, in which the pure body of Jesus had to be wrapped, and the new tomb, “which” Joseph “had hewn in the rock,” “where no one had yet been laid,” or, as John says, “in which no one had yet been placed.” And consider whether the agreement of the three evangelists, who took care to record that the tomb was hewn or cut in rock, may move someone who examines the meanings of what is written to see something worthy of reflection both in these things and in the newness of the tomb, which Matthew and John report, and in no dead man having been there, according to Luke and John. For he who was not like the other dead, but showed signs of life even in death, the water and the blood, and was, so to speak, a new kind of dead man, had to be in a new and clean tomb; so that, just as his birth was purer than every birth, since he was born not from intercourse but from a virgin, so his burial too might have purity, shown symbolically in his body's being laid in a new tomb, not built of gathered stones with no natural unity, but hewn and cut in one rock united throughout. The exposition, and the ascent from what is recorded to have happened to the realities of which the events were signs, one might set out more grandly and more divinely, presenting such things more fittingly in a work devoted to them. As to the letter, one might explain it thus: it belonged to one who had decided to endure hanging on the stake to keep also what followed from that undertaking, so that, having been taken down as a man, since he had died as a man, he should also be buried as a man. But if, hypothetically, it had been written in the Gospels that he vanished at once from the stake, Celsus and the unbelievers would have found fault with the text and accused it thus: “Why did he vanish after the cross, but not arrange this before suffering?” If, then, having learned from the Gospels that he did not vanish at once from the stake, they think they can accuse the teaching because it did not invent, as they demanded, his vanishing at once from the stake, but reported the truth, how is it not reasonable for them to believe also in his resurrection, and that, when he wished, he once “stood in the midst” of the disciples “when the doors were shut,” and another time, having given bread to two of his acquaintances, at once “vanished from their sight” after speaking certain words to them?

Where did the Jew of Celsus get the statement that Jesus hid himself? For he says of him: “What messenger ever sent, when he ought to announce what he was commanded, hides himself?” He did not hide himself who said to those seeking to arrest him: “Day after day I was in the temple teaching openly, and you did not seize me.” To what follows, which Celsus repeats, we, having answered once, shall be content with what was said before. For above we have written also against this: “Or, when he was disbelieved while in the body, he preached to all without restraint; but when he would have provided strong faith by rising from the dead, he appeared secretly to one little woman alone and to his own band of followers?” But it is not even true that he appeared to one little woman alone. For it is written in the Gospel according to Matthew: “After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone.” And a little later Matthew says: “And behold, Jesus met them” (clearly the Marys already mentioned), “saying, Greetings. And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him.” We have also answered this: “When he was being punished he was seen by all, but when he rose, by one,” when we replied to the objection that he was not seen by all. And now we shall say that his human attributes were visible to all, but his more divine attributes (I speak not of those that have a relation to other things, but of those by which he differs) were not accessible to all. Notice too Celsus's contradiction with himself in the very next words. Having said that he appeared secretly to one little woman and to his own band of followers, he immediately adds: “When he was being punished he was seen by all, but when he rose, by one; whereas the opposite should have happened.” Let us hear what he thinks “should have happened.” The opposite of being seen by all when punished and by one when risen: so far as his words go, he wanted what is both impossible and unreasonable, that when punished he should be seen by one, and when risen by all. Or how will you explain “whereas the opposite should have happened”?

Jesus also taught us who the one was who sent him, in the words “No one knows the Father except the Son” and “No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” He, speaking of God, declared to his genuine disciples the things concerning God; finding traces of these in the Scriptures, we have starting points for speaking of God, hearing in one place, “God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all,” and in another, “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” And the purposes for which the Father sent him are countless; let anyone who wishes learn them, partly from the prophets who proclaimed him beforehand, partly from the evangelists; and he will learn not a few from the apostles too, especially Paul. Moreover, he gives light to the pious and will punish sinners; Celsus did not see this, and wrote: “and to give light to the pious, and to have mercy on sinners, or on those who have repented.”

After this he says: “If he wished to be hidden, why was the voice from heaven heard proclaiming him Son of God? But if he did not wish to be hidden, why was he punished, or why did he die?” He thinks he shows a contradiction in what is written about him, not seeing that he neither wished everything about himself to be known to all and sundry, nor everything about himself to be hidden. At any rate, the voice from heaven proclaiming him to be the Son of God and saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,” is not recorded to have been audible to the crowds, as the Jew of Celsus supposed; and the voice from the cloud on the very high mountain was heard only by those who had gone up with him. For such is the divine voice: it is heard only by those whom the speaker wishes to hear it. I do not yet say that the voice of God recorded in Scripture is certainly not struck air, or a striking of the air, or whatever is said in treatises on voice; that is why it is heard by a hearing better and more divine than the hearing of sense. And when the speaker wishes his voice not to be audible to all, the one who “has” the better “ears” hears God, while one whose soul's hearing is deafened does not perceive God speaking. So much for “why was the voice from heaven heard proclaiming him Son of God?” As for “if he did not wish to be hidden, why was he punished, or why did he die?”, what we said at greater length above about the passion is enough.

After this the Jew of Celsus sets out as a consequence what is not a consequence. For it does not follow from “He wished to teach us, through the punishments he suffered, even to despise death” that, having risen from the dead, he should call all openly to the light and teach them why he had come down. For he had already called all to the light, saying: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” And why he had come down is recorded in the words he spoke at length in the Beatitudes and in what is proclaimed after them, in parables, and in his discourses with the scribes and Pharisees. The Gospel according to John sets out all he taught, showing Jesus' grandeur not in words but in deeds; and it is clear from the Gospels that “his word was with authority,” at which they also marveled.

And to all this the Jew of Celsus adds: “These things, then, we have set before you from your own writings, for which we need no other witness; for you fall foul of yourselves.” But we have shown that the Jew's speeches, whether against Jesus or against us, contain much nonsense contrary to our writings, the Gospels. And I do not think he has shown how we fall foul of ourselves; he only thinks so. And since his Jew adds to this: “In short, O most high and heavenly one, what god, being present among human beings, is disbelieved?”, it must be said to him that, even according to the law of Moses, God, recorded as having come most clearly to the Hebrews, not only in the signs and wonders in Egypt, and further the passage through the Red Sea, the pillar “of fire,” and the cloud of light, but also when the Ten Commandments were proclaimed to the whole people, was disbelieved by those who knew. For if they had believed what they saw and heard, they would not have made a calf, nor would they have “exchanged their glory for the likeness of a calf that eats grass,” nor would they have said to one another about the calf: “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.” And see whether it is not characteristic of the same people both formerly to disbelieve, through the whole wilderness, such great wonders and such manifestations of God, as is written in the law of the Jews, and at the marvelous coming of Jesus not to be won over by the words he spoke with authority and the marvelous deeds he did in the sight of all the people.

I think this is enough for anyone who wishes to show that the Jews' unbelief toward Jesus was consistent with what was recorded about the people from the beginning. For I would say to the Jew in Celsus who says, “What god, being present among human beings, is disbelieved, and that when he appears to those who hope for him? Or why is he not recognized by those who have long awaited him?”: “Sirs, how will you answer our questions? What miracles seem to you, by your own judgment, to be greater: those in Egypt and the wilderness, or those we say Jesus did among you? If by your reckoning the former are greater than the latter, how is it not shown at once that it belongs to the character of those who disbelieved the greater to despise the lesser too? For this is what is supposed about what we say concerning Jesus. But if those told of Jesus are said to be equal to those recorded by Moses, what strange thing has befallen a people who disbelieved at both beginnings of these events? For the beginning of lawgiving was in Moses' time, in which the sins of the unbelievers and sinners among you are recorded; and the beginning of lawgiving and of a second covenant is acknowledged to have come to us in the time of Jesus. And by your unbelief toward Jesus you bear witness that you are sons of those who in the wilderness disbelieved the divine manifestations; and what our Savior said will be said to you too, who disbelieved him: ‘So you are witnesses and approve of the deeds of your fathers’; and in you is fulfilled the prophecy that says: ‘Your life will hang before your eyes, and you will not believe in your life.’ For you did not believe in the Life that came to dwell among the human race.”

In giving the Jew his part, Celsus did not manage to put into his speech anything that could not be turned back on him from the writings of the law and the prophets. For he blames Jesus, saying of him: “He threatens and reviles lightly whenever he says, ‘Woe to you,’ and ‘I tell you beforehand.’ For in these words he openly admits that he is unable to persuade, which would not happen to a god, nor even to a sensible man.” See whether these words do not recoil directly on the Jew. For in the writings of the law and the prophets God threatens and reviles, whenever he says “woe,” no less than in the Gospel, as in these words in Isaiah: “Woe to those who join house to house and add field to field,” and “Woe to those who rise early in the morning and pursue strong drink,” and “Woe to those who draw sins after them as with a long rope,” and “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,” and “Woe to the mighty among you who drink wine.” And you could find countless others. How is “Woe, sinful nation, a people full of sins, an evil seed, lawless sons,” and what follows, not like the threats he speaks of? To these he adds threats so great that they are no less than those he says Jesus spoke. Or is it not a threat, and a great one, that says: “Your land is desolate, your cities burned with fire; strangers devour your country before you, and it is laid waste, overthrown by foreign peoples”? And how are there not revilings of the people in Ezekiel too, where the Lord says to the prophet: “You dwell in the midst of scorpions”? Did you, Celsus, make the Jew say knowingly of Jesus that “he threatens and reviles lightly whenever he says, ‘Woe to you’ and ‘I tell you beforehand’”? Do you not see that what the Jew in your book says against Jesus could be said against him about God? For the God in the prophets is found, as the Jew thinks, plainly liable to the same charges, as being unable to persuade. I would further say to those who think the Jew in Celsus rightly accuses Jesus of these things that very many curses are recorded in Leviticus and Deuteronomy; and however the Jew defends them, standing by Scripture, in that way or even better we shall defend what are thought to be Jesus' revilings and threats. And we shall be better able than the Jew to defend the law of Moses itself, since we have been taught by Jesus to understand the writings of the law more intelligently. And the Jew too, if he sees the intent of the prophetic words, will be able to show that God does not threaten and revile lightly when he says “woe” and “I tell you beforehand,” and how God would say such things for the conversion of human beings, which Celsus thinks not even a sensible man would do. And Christians, who know one God, the same in the prophets and in the Lord, will show the reasonableness of what are thought to be threats and what Celsus calls revilings. And a few words on this passage will be said to Celsus, who professes to be a philosopher and to know our affairs: “Sir, if Homer's Hermes says to Odysseus, ‘Why again, unhappy man, do you go alone over the hilltops?’, you accept the defense that the Homeric Hermes speaks thus to Odysseus to turn him back (since flattery and pleasing words belong to the Sirens, around whom lies a heap of bones, who say: ‘Come here, much-praised Odysseus, great glory of the Achaeans’); but if my prophets and Jesus himself say ‘woe,’ and what you consider revilings, for the conversion of their hearers, is nothing accomplished for the hearers by such words, and does such a word not bring them a healing, Paean-like remedy? Unless, perhaps, you want God, or one who shares in the divine nature, when he converses with human beings, to look only to what belongs to his own nature and is worthy of himself, and no longer to consider what is fitting to promise to those who are guided and led by his word, and to speak to each according to his existing character.” And how is it not ridiculous to say of Jesus that he was unable to persuade, when this applies equally not only to the Jew, who has many such things in the prophecies, but also to the Greeks, among whom each of those who won great fame for wisdom could not persuade those plotting against him, or his judges, or his accusers, to cease from wickedness and to travel through philosophy to virtue?

After this the Jew says to him, evidently in keeping with what Jews hold: “We hope, of course, to rise in the body and to have eternal life, and that the one sent to us will be the example and pioneer of this, showing that it is not impossible for God to raise someone with the body.” We do not know whether the Jew will say that the expected Christ shows in himself an example of the resurrection; but let it be granted that he both thinks and says this. We shall answer him who said he had spoken to us from our own writings: “Sir, did you read those passages in which you suppose you accuse us, but not go through the resurrection of Jesus, and that he is ‘the firstborn from the dead’? Or, since you do not wish these things to have been said, have they not been said?” And since the Jew in Celsus still speaks of and accepts the resurrection of bodies, I do not think this the right time to discuss it with one who both believes and says that there is a resurrection of bodies, whether he articulates it for himself and can champion the doctrine well, or whether he assents to it in a more mythical way. So let this be said thus to Celsus's Jew. And since after this he says, “Where is he, then, that we may see and believe?”, we shall say to him: “Where now is the one who speaks in the prophets and who did wonders, that we may see and believe that you are God's portion? Or may you defend God's not always appearing to the Hebrew race, while the same defense is not granted to us concerning Jesus, who once rose and persuaded his disciples of his resurrection, and persuaded them so far that by what they suffer they show all that, looking to eternal life and to the resurrection shown them in word and deed, they make light of all the hardships of life?”