Questions and Answers to the Orthodox 50–73

[Question.] Since of old the children, and now we, when singing hymns use the word Hosanna and the word Alleluia, what is their interpretation? Answer. The interpretation of the one is, “Praise with song the One who is”; and of Hosanna, …

[Question.] If the Divine is unchangeable, how has he often rendered to both [the righteous and the wicked] what the deeds of each deserved? Answer. God, remaining unchangeably in his own perception and justice, renders to each according to desert; not doing this by finding it through a change, but having it always, he has unchangeableness in these things … and those held by insensibility or injustice, which are foreign [to him].

[Question.] If Saul, moved by pious zeal, destroyed the mediums, why was he driven to seek a prediction from a medium? And did she really bring up Samuel, since Scripture says this? And that she spoke the truth, though the act was impious, is clear. Answer. One who does something with divine zeal does not fight against God. But Saul, suspecting David, that God had transferred his kingdom to him, contrived by every means to kill David, so that the divine sentence against himself might not come to fulfillment. He destroyed the mediums expecting by this to change [God's] own sentence about the kingdom, not hating the impiety of the mediums but loving the kingdom. And since God did not accept his aim, for this reason he left him to need those whom he had destroyed with no good aim. All the other things done by the medium [took place] by the activity of the demon, who deluded the sight of the onlookers [to see] Samuel, who was not there. But the truth of the words came from God, who granted the demon to appear to the medium in the form of Samuel and to make known the future. And since Saul did not listen to Samuel, who had told him of the taking away of the kingdom, but even after the divine sentence that rejected him from the kingdom still laid claim to the kingdom, for these reasons God judged him unworthy to have the future announced to him through those dedicated to God, as he did also with Ahab king of Israel, who disbelieved the prophets of the truth; and he sent him a lying spirit, as the book of Kingdoms says; and Ahab, believing and being deceived, went out into the desert and did not return alive …

[Question.] If male and female were created for the sake of procreation, when the resurrection takes place do men rise having the distinction of the procreative parts? And if so, how is it not superfluous to bring along members that have no use? Answer. Even if the generative parts are not useful for procreation after the resurrection, yet they are useful as a reminder that through such parts men received their generation, growth, and continuance. For we are led by them to think of the great wisdom of Christ, which [devised] … the guarding of our race against death in immortality through the succession of those who are born. [54] Question. [If Moses] prophesied that this punishment would be brought on the people, why did he say these things in song, when songs are known to bring relaxation rather than profit to [the hearers]? Answer. The rhythms of the melodies were made fittingly according to the narratives contained in the songs, bringing the souls into the disposition that befits what is sung; for either mournfully …

[Question.] … of contraries the … of such … , healing of bodily diseases, and by Solomon the king, but none of the …

[Question.] If infants who die have neither praise nor blame from works, what is the difference in the resurrection between those baptized by others, who have done nothing, and those not baptized, [who have done nothing either]? Answer. This is the difference between the baptized and the unbaptized: the baptized obtain the goods that come through baptism, and the unbaptized do not obtain them; and the baptized are counted worthy of the goods that come through baptism by the faith of those who bring them to baptism.

[Question.] If Moses set out for us the creation of two heavens, how does Scripture teach us that there are more? At one time it says, “The heavens of the heavens”; at another, “The heavens were opened to him”; and, “I see the heavens opened”; and, “He was caught up to the third heaven” — and it did not say, “to the third part of heaven,” but absolutely, “to the third heaven”; and you will find many things like these in Scripture. How then do they not say things contrary to one another, and yet speak truly in both? Answer. Moses said “heavens,” but did not give a number, neither one nor two nor more. But the divine Scripture was going to name the spaces lying above in part “heavens,” as in “the birds of heaven,” “an eagle from heaven,” and “the stars of heaven.” From the sequence of the words used, then, we understand that the heavens are two in substance, but more in respect of spaces; and when the heavens are understood in this way, there is no contra[diction] …

[Question.] If to attribute ignorance to Christ is impious, clearly he has perfect foreknowledge of all things. How then is he not the cause of the betrayal by Judas and of the sworn denial by Peter, he who foreknew these things and did not prevent them? And the same argument would fit the fall of the devil and of the first-formed man from God. Answer. If Christ had to be betrayed by one of his disciples, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, clearly … of the Scripture, and not of the betrayal by Judas. For of this Judas himself was the cause; and God, foreseeing it as future, foretold it through Scripture. And foreknowledge is not the cause of what will be, but what will be is the cause of the foreknowledge. For what is future does not follow foreknowledge, but foreknowledge follows what is future; and in no way is the one who foreknows the cause of what will be. So Christ is not the cause of the betrayal, but the betrayal is the cause of the Lord's foreknowledge. And the same argument holds for the devil and the first-formed man. [59] Question. [If the luminaries are] hidden …, how is the heaven not shown to be a sphere? For the divine man among the philosophers said: “… by body. This, then, which lies upon the earth; and the one, because it is light, moves upward, and the other, because it is heavy, moves downward. Therefore, because of their counterpull, they are held together by one another.” If this is true, of the whole heavenly vault … to shine always, how then are they hidden? Answer. If, admittedly, many things that are on one and the same level plane are hidden from sight because of the length of the distance — as ships at sea are not seen by one another, since the breadth of the surface of the waters bounds the sight so that it does not reach beyond the horizon — what wonder if the hiding of the luminaries also happens for the same reason? As for heaven and earth standing because of the counterpull of heaven and earth, this can be conjectured of the first heaven and the earth, because they came into being together; but of the firmament and the earth it is no longer possible to suppose it. For the earth stood before the firmament, bearing all the moist substance without any counterpull of the firmament; for the firmament came into being after the earth.

[Question.] If difference of forms is useful to us here because of the needs of the body, occupations, and dealings, and the body rises without needs at the resurrection, then if we rise with the same difference of forms, how is it not useless? But if we rise in the same likeness, what is the proof of this? And how does the parable of Lazarus and the rich man not show the difference of forms? For it is quite clear from it. And if some should say that some knowledge was given him for recognizing Lazarus and Abraham, how will they establish this also in the Lord's case, when the bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep rose and appeared to many? Surely in their own form, [to those who had known them]. Answer. There are many reasons why those who rise must rise in their own form. First, to show the great and divine knowledge of God, who is able, in so countless a multitude of those rising, to preserve to each his own form. Then, so that he may not be thought to create new men instead of raising the dead, for this reason each of those rising has his own form. For if the forms of the wrongdoer and the wronged were unknown, the justice of the judgment would perish. Further, if, when the needs are dissolved because of which the difference of forms became necessary, this difference is found superfluous and useless, superfluous and useless too is the difference of names. How then does the rich man call Abraham and Lazarus by name, if the persons are not known by the difference of names? The narrative about Lazarus and the rich man is neither a parable nor a history. For a parable is a speech containing a likeness of something that has happened to what will be, and a history is a speech that narrates … [serving the illumination of the universe, so that the luminaries exist and shine always] … For neither before the resurrection does the requital of what each has lived take place, nor after the resurrection is it true that “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.” The narrative about Lazarus and the rich man is a sketch of a teaching that men cannot, after the departure of the soul from the body, obtain any benefit by any provision or effort. [61] Question. [If God alone has immortality,] according to the Apostle, how is it true, according to him, that “We shall not all sleep”? Answer. God is said to be the only one who has immortality because he does not have it from the will of another, … but according to [his] essence.

[Question.] If the luminaries were made on the fourth day, and the number of days is made up from them, how do the three days before the bringing forth of the luminaries not make doubtful the number of days after the bringing forth of the luminaries? Answer. From the bringing forth of the light came the separation of light and darkness; and from the separation of light and darkness, day and night came to be. Before the making of the luminaries, the prevailing of light according to the limit set by God made the day, and the prevailing of darkness made the night. When the luminaries came into being, they were appointed to rule, the one over the light and the day, the other over the darkness and the night. For the Creator allotted the light with its fixed prevailing to the greater of the luminaries; and such days as the light now makes with the luminary, such it made also before the making of the luminaries, by the limit of God, who fixed its prevailing at twelve hours. That limit urges the sun on to the measured twelve-hour course it has had from the beginning.

[Question.] Since some have interpreted variously and obscurely the words, “In the sun he set his tent,” teach us their clear meaning. Answer. We said above that the divine Scripture is accustomed to call heavens either those that are heavens in substance, like the first heaven and the firmament, or the spaces in the air. “In the sun he set his tent,” then, means: he set the heavens as a tent for the sun. For the rendering of the phrase from the Hebrew tongue into the Syrian tongue was made thus: “In them he set the tent of the sun.” The prophet David shows this very thing in another psalm, saying, “Who stretches out the heaven like a skin” (for the stretching out of skins makes a tent) … by the variety of their substances and the difference of their uses showing them to be generated. For the unbegotten nature has no difference by nature in relation to the [unbegotten] nature; and being of this kind or that for the sake of a need is foreign to the [unbegotten] nature. [64] Question. [If, as Jonah was in the belly] of the sea monster for three days, so too Christ was in the heart of the earth, how did not the Lord's death happen in mere appearance? For Jonah did not die, but was thought to have died. But if the Lord truly tasted death, how is the example of Jonah not proved false? Answer. He did not compare death with death, but the Savior's three-day stay in the tomb with Jonah's three-day stay in the sea monster. Besides, if the things of Jonah were like those of the Savior in all respects, they could no longer be a type or image of them. The truth must have something more than the type, according to what was said: “Something greater than Jonah is here.” The example of Jonah is understood to be true of the Savior in this way: as Jonah had, as a sign giving faith that he had been sent by God as herald of the overthrow of the Ninevites, his being brought up from the sea monster on the third day, so too the Savior had, as a sign giving faith that he was sent by God as herald of the kingdom of heaven, his resurrection from the tomb on the third day.

[Question.] Since some say that the Lord's betrayal took place on Wednesday, conjecturing this from the number of things that were done at that time, what is the proof of the day on which the betrayal took place? Answer. The proof that Christ was betrayed not on Wednesday but on Thursday is this: in the night in which he was betrayed, in that same night he was tried and condemned by the high priests and elders; and in the morning that followed that night they handed him over to Pilate. And on the day on which Pilate received him, on that day he also crucified him: having received him on the morning of the Preparation, he crucified him at the sixth hour of the same Preparation. One must not, then, … For Matthew the evangelist says: “[When morning came,] all the high priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death; and having bound him, they led him away and handed him over to Pontius Pilate the governor.” Likewise John the evangelist says: “They lead Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium; and it was early”; and again: “When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out and sat on the judgment seat at a place … It was the Preparation of the Passover, and the hour was about the sixth.” If, then, he was betrayed in the night, and was tried and condemned by the high priests, and in the morning was handed over to Pilate, and was crucified at the sixth hour of the Preparation, it is clear that the betrayal took place on Thursday. [66] Question. [If Christ calls himself son] of man, and not of a woman, … and for this reason unbelievers try to show that the Lord's birth came about from marital union; for “of man,” they say, is the name not of a female but of a male: by what arguments, then, shall we refute such an insult, vainly spoken? [Answer.] [If from marital union] the Lord's birth had come about, Scripture would not have said, “Being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph.” For “as was supposed” has no place to be said of those born from marital union. And to overturn, by one unclear and deficient expression, all those expressions that clearly announce that Christ was born of the Holy Spirit and of Mary the virgin is most absurd. To refute their vain attempt we use arguments such as these. If, because Christ did not call himself son of a woman, he is not for this reason son of a woman, then because he did not call himself son of some man, he is not son of some man. But if Christ is not the son of some man, necessarily he is not son of man at all. Further, if, as Joseph was reckoned son of Heli according to the law without marital union, God having wished to give Joseph as son to Heli in this way, what is absurd in giving a son without marital union to Joseph too in the same way? For this reason divine grace arranged beforehand that the Virgin be [betrothed] to a man who had two fathers, one by nature from marital union, the other according to the law without marital union; prefiguring in his begetting the begetting of Christ, who was born of the Holy Spirit as Son to God, and born of Joseph's wife as son to Joseph. “The Holy Spirit,” it says, “will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore also the holy one born of you will be called, to the Lord, Son of God.” But if the one born of Heli's wife is son of [Heli] according to God's law, much more is the one born of Joseph's wife, by divine good pleasure, son of Joseph without marital union.

[Question.] Since Isaiah, prophesying about the Master Lord, says, “Who will declare his generation?”, is this saying to be taken of a generation hard to declare or not to be declared at all, and of the Godhead or of the flesh? … how is the [genealogy] of Christ [traced], and is its manner in Scripture? [Answer.] … [from the Holy Spirit] and the virgin Mary; but his birth according to the Godhead is without genealogy; therefore … the indescribable or hard-to-describe character of the birth.

[Question.] If the soul of man is not his blood (though when the blood is shed the living being perishes), by what arguments and examples is it shown that there is a soul in the body, or something else in creation that is invisible? [Answer.] … of creation, which distinguish soul from body, ought not to demand examples more trustworthy than these to establish the truth of what is sought. For giving the devil authority over the whole bodily constitution of Job, to strike it as he wished, while preventing him from touching his soul, shows that the incorporeal soul is something other than his stricken flesh. Likewise too, “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul” shows that there is something of the slain man that remains in immortality even after the death of the body. So it is absurd to call the blood that is shed and corrupted the soul. It is clear, then, that the soul is by its own nature invisible to men.

[Question.] Why does the number seven bring change? For on the Sabbath the air usually changes; and man's progress in age takes its increase in this number, the teeth growing in the seventh month and being changed in the seventh year; and when the number is doubled, men acquire seminal power; and, to put it briefly, the number seven produces the growth and the end of men, determines the crisis of diseases, and has gained in the law more honor than the other numbers. Answer. The fulfillment of the works of nature takes place according to the power of nature, and not according to a span of time fixed by a week of months or years. Therefore nature often brings the works of nature named in the question to their completion sooner or later than seven; which would not happen if nature followed the seven, and not the seven nature. The seven, then, is not the cause of the fulfillment of the works of nature; rather the power of nature is the cause of the seven, … for nature to accomplish its own works. Likewise concerning the other numbers of months and years by which the work of nature is fulfilled in the other animals and plants, the power of nature is the cause of the equal time, and of the longer and the shorter. The number seven is more honored in the divine Scripture than the other numbers because in it lies the whole time of the making of the world and of the rest of him who made it: six for the making, one for the rest. So that the memory of the making of the world might be kept among men, for this reason he ordained that the number seven should be found more honored than the others in the divine Scripture. [70] Question. If rejoicing and exulting in gifts is forbidden as [a mark] of pride, and humility and gentleness are handed down by the divine Scripture to those who have received them, how are the gifts not useless to them, since they cannot give them a perception of their own good in the present? Answer. [Scripture] forbids rejoicing in gifts with pride, as destroying good rejoicing; but rejoicing in gifts with gentleness it not only does not discourage, but on the contrary encourages such joy: at one time the Savior saying, “Rejoice that your names have been written in heaven”; at another the Apostle saying, “Brothers, rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice. Let your gentleness be known,” showing the intensity of the joy. Neither, then, does joy destroy gentleness, nor does gentleness destroy the perception of joy, but each is preserved by the other.

[Question.] Since some, conjecturing about the constitution of the world, have said that it will stand for only six thousand years, let us learn whether this is true and is shown by clear examples, or from the divine Scripture, or whether it is unknown. Answer. It is possible to learn through many words of Scripture that the time of the present constitution of the world is [six thousand] years: at one time it says, “In these last days he has spoken to us in a Son”; at another, “On whom the ends of the ages have come”; at another, “When the fullness of time came.” All such words were spoken in the sixth …

[Question.] If each person is shown to be ungrudging when he bestows on his neighbors what he knows to be good, if it is possible, how is God not grudging, when he is able to make all beings gods and does not make them so, since God is good? But if he is not grudging, but did not do this because he is unable, one of the two is necessary. Answer. [Ungrudgingness is shown] in those who bestow on their neighbors the good things they can do or know. For a neighbor of God would not need God for provision; for he would have equality with him in all things. Further, if God made only gods, he would not have made the world. For the world necessarily needs parts that differ from one another in position, above and below. Further, if nothing impossible comes to be, and it is impossible for a god to come to be (for God is uncreated and unmade), how is it not irrational to say that God is ungrudging only when he makes what is not possible? Further, God is good because he is uncreated and creator; but nothing created is God. This question resembles the argument that says: “The eye is good and more honorable than the feet; but if God is ungrudging, why did he not make the feet eyes?” For this argument too leads to the same irrational absurdity, that God did not make the feet eyes either from envy or from inability.

[Question.] If the good appears good when it is compared with the bad, and the world is good, clearly the not-world, that is, what was before the world, is bad. And if both are from God, that is, what was before the world and the world, how are not both from him, that is, the good and the bad? But if one is from him and the other is not from him, how is what is not from him not spontaneous and not under him? And how does he speak truly who says, “From him are all things”? For among all things are both the things that formerly did not exist and the things that now exist. Answer. Evil is nothing other than the turning aside from the good; therefore evil is later than the good, for it is a turning aside from the good. And this shows that the good appears good not from comparison with the bad, but from its own nature. And what was before the world, not being, in no way was; it was neither good nor bad; therefore nothing is compared with what so is not. Further, what in no way is is neither from God, nor from another, nor spontaneous. Before the world, then, there was nothing other than God. Since comparison is of things that are with things that are, the world is not compared with the not-world, nor is the not-world contained in the world. For the not-world is nothing; but what is contained is something. And when we say [that God made the world] from what is not, … we give no being to what is not, but [affirm] the complete abolition of what is not. [74] Question. [If, now that Hellenism has been overthrown] by Christianity, Hellenism has no hope of recall, how has the true religion, once conquered by Hellenism, now received recall? For that the truth prevailed before error the divine Scriptures bear witness, showing that Adam and many after him served not idols but God, even if some of them … Answer. If the end of the present order is the judgment of the impious by fire, as the Scriptures of the prophets and apostles say, and also those of the Sibyl, as the blessed Clement says in his letter to the Corinthians; and this judgment takes place through Jesus Christ, who was crucified by the Jews, who reigns eternally over the Christians with an endless kingdom given to him according to the prophet Daniel; for this reason Hellenism has no hope of recall. Besides, if Hellenism, once the dominion by which it held the people of God was dissolved, never took it again, how does it not now expect in vain the recall of its old dominion? And why does Hellenism expect the recall of its old dominion? Surely so that by tortures it may compel Christians to abandon the worship of and faith in the Son of God and turn to follow the religion of the demons. But these tortures, which Hellenism used before, expecting through them to keep itself undissolved, put an end to Hellenism and [established] Christianity …