Eranistes (The Beggar), or Polymorphus 3.12–3.20

Eranistes: And you yourself, in telling of this type, said that Isaac came back to life by the divine voice. So we do nothing unreasonable in fitting the truth to the type, and [saying] that God the Word suffered … Orthodoxos: I have often said that the image cannot have everything that the archetype has. And this is easy to learn from this case too. For Isaac and the ram agree with the image as regards the difference of the natures, but no longer as regards the division, in which the hypostases are separated. For we proclaim such a union of Godhead and humanity that we conceive one undivided person, and know the same one as God and man, seen and unseen, circumscribed and uncircumscribed; and all the other things that indicate the Godhead and the humanity we attach to the one person. Since, then, it was not possible for the return to life to be prefigured in the ram, which was irrational and deprived of the divine image, they divide between them the type of the mystery of the dispensation, and one shows the image of the death, the other of the resurrection. And we find this same thing in the Mosaic sacrifices too; for in them too one can see the type of the saving passion sketched out beforehand. … truth? Orthodoxos: The whole Old [Testament], so to speak, is a type of the New. For this reason the divine Apostle says expressly, “For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come,” and again, “Now all these things happened to them as types.” And the lamb sacrificed in Egypt, and the red heifer burned far outside the camp, show the image of the archetype most clearly. The Apostle mentioned this heifer in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and added, “Therefore Jesus also, to sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered outside the city.” But of these I will say nothing for the present; I will mention that sacrifice which has two goats brought forward, one of them sacrificed and the other set free. For these sketch beforehand the image of the two natures of the Saviour: the one set free, that of the impassible Godhead; the one slaughtered, [that of the passible humanity] … Eranistes: Then does it not seem blasphemous to you to liken the Lord to goats? Orthodoxos: Which do you think more to be shunned and loathsome, a snake or a goat? Eranistes: Clearly the snake is … [it bites] those who come near, and often harms even those who have done it no wrong; whereas the [goat] is among the clean animals fit to eat according to the law. Orthodoxos: Then hear the Lord likening the saving passion to the bronze snake: “As Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness,” he says, “so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may not perish but have eternal life.” If a bronze snake fulfilled the type of the body that was nailed, what have we done that is unreasonable in setting the sacrifice of the goats beside the saving passion?

Eranistes: Because John called the Lord a lamb, and Isaiah likewise a lamb and a sheep … Orthodoxos: But the blessed Paul calls him sin and curse. Therefore as curse he fulfils the type of the accursed snake, and as sin he shows the image of the sacrifice of the goats. For according to the law, for sin it was not a lamb but a kid of the goats that was offered. For this reason the Lord too in the Gospels likened the righteous to lambs and sinners to kids. Since, then, he was to undergo the passion not for the righteous only but also for sinners, fittingly he sketches beforehand his own sacrifice through lambs and goats. Eranistes: But the type of the two goats leads us to think of two persons. [Orthodoxos:] It was not possible for both to be prefigured at the same time in one goat, the passibility of the humanity and the impassibility of the Godhead. For if it had been killed it would not have shown the living nature. For this reason two were taken to show the two natures. The same may also be seen in another sacrifice … Orthodoxos: Where the lawgiver orders two clean birds to be offered, and one to be sacrificed, and the other to be dipped in the blood of the one sacrificed and [set free]. For here too we see the type of Godhead and humanity, the one sacrificed, the other … Eranistes: You have brought us many types. But I do not accept enigmatic language. Orthodoxos: And yet the divine Apostle says that the histories too are types: he called Hagar a type of the old covenant, and likened Sarah to the heavenly Jerusalem, and said that Ishmael was a type of Israel, and Isaac of the new people. Accuse, then, the great trumpet of the Spirit too, for [setting] enigmatic [words] before us all. Eranistes: Even if you bring me countless other arguments, you will not persuade me to divide the passion. For I have heard the angel saying to the women with Mary, “Come, see where the Lord lay.” Orthodoxos: We too are accustomed to do this; for we call the part by the common names as well. When we enter the shrines of the holy apostles, or prophets, or martyrs, we ask, “Who lies in the coffin?” And those who know the truth answer by naming perhaps Thomas the apostle, or John the Baptist, or Stephen, the first champion of the martyrs, or some other of the saints, although sometimes only very small relics lie there. But no one who hears these common names, which signify soul and body together, will suppose that the souls too are shut up in the caskets; he knows that only the bodies, or small parts of the bodies, lie in the caskets. And this is just what that holy angel did, calling the body by the name of the person.

Eranistes: And from where will you show that the angel spoke to the women about the Lord’s body? Orthodoxos: First, the tomb itself is enough to settle the question. For not even a soul is handed over to a tomb, much less the Godhead, the uncircumscribed nature; tombs are made for bodies. Then the divine Scripture too teaches this clearly. For the inspired Matthew relates it in this way: “When evening had come, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who himself had also become a disciple of Jesus. He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered the body to be given up. And Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock; and he rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb and went away.” See how many times he mentioned the body, to stop the mouths of those who blaspheme the Godhead. The thrice-blessed Mark did the same; I will quote what he related as well. “When evening had come,” he says, “since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was himself also waiting for the kingdom of God, came and went in boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Pilate wondered whether he was already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead long. And when he learned it from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph. And he bought a linen cloth, and taking him down, he wrapped him in the linen cloth and laid him in a tomb,” and what follows. Marvel, then, as you see the agreement, and the word “body” used consistently and continually. And the all-praised Luke too related in the same way that Joseph asked for the body, and having taken it, honored it with the customary rites. And the most divine John related further details as well: “Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate gave him leave. So he came and took away the body of Jesus. Nicodemus also came, who had first come to Jesus by night, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.” See, then, how many times he mentioned the body, and showed that this was nailed to the cross, and this Joseph asked of Pilate, and this he took down from the wood, and this they bound in the linen cloths with the myrrh and the aloes; and then he set down the name of the person, and said that Jesus was laid in the tomb. For this reason the angel too said, “Come, see where the Lord lay,” calling the body by the common name. For so we too are accustomed to speak: “In this place so-and-so was buried”; and we do not say “the body of so-and-so,” but “so-and-so.” But everyone of sound mind knows that we are speaking of the body. And it is customary for the divine Scripture to speak in this way: “Aaron died,” it says, “and they buried him on Mount Hor”; and, “Samuel died, and they buried him in Armathaim”; and countless such things. The divine Apostle kept this custom when he mentioned the Lord’s death: “For I delivered to you,” he says, “as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,” and what follows.

Eranistes: In what you have just read the Apostle did not mention a body, but Christ, the Saviour of us all. So you have brought the testimony against yourself, and struck yourself with your own arrows. Orthodoxos: It seems you have very quickly forgotten those long arguments I went through, showing that people often call the body by the names of persons. The divine Apostle has done the same thing here too, and it is easy to recognize this from the passage itself. Let us consider it this way. Why did this inspired man write these things to the Corinthians? Eranistes: Some had deceived them into thinking that there is no resurrection of bodies. Having learned this, the teacher of the world brought them the arguments about the resurrection of bodies. Orthodoxos: And why, wishing to show the resurrection of bodies, did he bring forward the Lord’s resurrection? Eranistes: As sufficient to show the resurrection of us all. Orthodoxos: What likeness does it have to the death of the others, that he should prove the resurrection of all by its resurrection? Eranistes: For this reason the only-begotten Son of God became man, and suffered, and experienced death: to destroy death. Having risen, then, he proclaims through his own resurrection the resurrection of all human beings. Orthodoxos: And who would believe, on hearing of the resurrection of God, that the resurrection of all human beings will be like it? The unlikeness of the natures does not allow belief in the argument for the resurrection. For he is God, and they are human beings; and the distance between God and human beings is immense. They are mortal and perishable, and likened to grass and flower; but he … Eranistes: But God the Word, having become man, had a body, and through this [had kinship] with human beings … Orthodoxos: To the body, then, belong altogether the passion, and the death, and the resurrection. And the divine Apostle, showing this from another side, promises return to life to all; and to those who believe in the Saviour’s resurrection but suppose the common resurrection of all to be a myth, he cries out: “Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.” And from what has happened he confirms what will be; and from what is disbelieved he refutes what is believed. For if that, he means, seems impossible to you, this too is surely false; but if this seems true and credible, let that likewise seem credible. For here too the resurrection of a body is proclaimed, and this is called the firstfruits of those. For after his many earlier arguments he said this as a declaration: “But now Christ has been raised from the dead; he became 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.” And he not only confirmed the argument about the resurrection, but also revealed the mystery of the dispensation. For this reason he also called Christ man, to show that the cure suits the disease.

Eranistes: Is Christ, then, only a man? Orthodoxos: Far from it! We have often said the opposite: that he is not only man but also God before the ages. But he suffered as man, not as God. And the divine Apostle taught us this clearly when he said, “For since through a man came death, through a man also came the resurrection of the dead.” And writing to the Thessalonians, he confirms the argument about the common resurrection from the resurrection of our Saviour: “For if we believe,” he says, “that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.” Eranistes: The Apostle did show the common resurrection through the Lord’s resurrection. And it is clear that here too it was a body that died and rose; for he would not have tried to show the resurrection of all through it, if it did not have kinship in substance with them. Yet I will not tolerate attaching the passion to the human nature alone; rather, it seems to me consistent to say that God the Word died in the flesh. Orthodoxos: We have often shown that what is immortal by nature can in no way die. If, then, he died, he is not immortal. How great are the dangers in the blasphemy of these words! Eranistes: By nature he is immortal, but having become man he suffered. Orthodoxos: Then he underwent change. For how else, being immortal, did he receive death? And yet we agreed … [So he by no means] partook of death, since he has a nature superior to change. Eranistes: The divine Peter has said, “… having suffered for us in the flesh.” Orthodoxos: Our argument too agrees with this; for we have learned the rule of doctrines from the divine Scripture. Eranistes: Why, then, do you not say that God the Word suffered [in the flesh]? Orthodoxos: Because we have not found this expression in the divine Scripture. … Orthodoxos: You seem not to know the difference of the names. Eranistes: What names? Does it not seem to you that Christ the Lord is God the Word? Orthodoxos: The name “Christ,” applied to our Lord and Saviour, indicates the Word made man; “Emmanuel,” that is, “God with us,” indicates God and man; but “God the Word,” said in this way, signifies the simple nature, before the world, above time, incorporeal. For this reason the all-holy Spirit, who spoke through the holy apostles, nowhere [joined] passion or death to this title.

Eranistes: If [Scripture] attaches the passion to Christ, and God the Word, having become man, was named Christ, he does nothing absurd, I think, who says that God the Word suffered … Orthodoxos: The attempt is utterly reckless and exceedingly bold. But let us examine the argument in this way. [Does not] the divine Scripture say that God the Word is from God the Father? … Orthodoxos: And it likewise teaches that the Holy Spirit is from God. … Orthodoxos: But it names God the Word only-begotten Son. … Orthodoxos: But nowhere has it called the Holy Spirit [Son] … although this too has its existence from God the Father. Orthodoxos: Since, then, we agree that both the Son and the Spirit are from God the Father, would you ever dare to name the all-holy Spirit Son? Eranistes: [No,] since I do not find this name in the divine Scripture. Orthodoxos: For what reason? Eranistes: Neither was I taught this by the divine Scripture. Orthodoxos: And what is neither begotten nor created, what title would it fittingly receive? Eranistes: We call it uncreated and unbegotten. Orthodoxos: And we say that the all-holy Spirit is neither created nor begotten. … Orthodoxos: Would you dare, then, to call the all-holy Spirit unbegotten? … Orthodoxos: And why do you not call unbegotten what is by nature uncreated and in no way begotten? Eranistes: Because I have not learned this from the divine Scripture, and I am very much afraid to say what [is not said] by it. Orthodoxos: Keep, then, my good friend, this same reverence for us in the case of the saving passion too; and whatever divine names the Scripture has left free of the passion, you too leave them so, and do not attach the passion to them. Eranistes: And which are these? Orthodoxos: Nowhere has [it] joined the passion to the title “God” … Eranistes: Nor do I say that God the Word suffered without a body; I say that he suffered in the flesh. Orthodoxos: Then you speak of a manner of suffering, not of impassibility. But one would not say this even about a human soul. For who, unless utterly deranged, would say that Paul’s soul died in the flesh? It would never be said even about some utterly wicked man; for even the souls of the wicked are immortal. We say that such-and-such a murderer was put to death, but no one would say that his soul was slaughtered in the flesh. And if we say that the souls of murderers and grave-robbers are free from death, it is surely much more just to know that the soul of our Saviour is immortal, since it never tasted sin at all. For if the souls that committed the greatest offences escaped the experience of death because of their nature, how would that soul, which has an immortal nature and received not even a small stain of sin, have received the hook of death? Eranistes: You have brought us these long arguments in vain; for we confess that the Saviour’s soul is immortal.

Orthodoxos: And what punishment would you not deserve, calling the soul, which has a created nature, immortal, while in your argument making the divine substance mortal? And not saying that the Saviour’s soul tasted death in the flesh, while daring to say that God the Word himself, the Creator of all things, suffered the passion? Eranistes: We say that he suffered impassibly. Orthodoxos: And what person of sound mind would put up with these ridiculous riddles? No one has ever heard of an impassible passion, or an immortal death. For what is impassible has not suffered, and what has suffered could not remain impassible. But we hear the divine Paul crying out, “Who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light.” Eranistes: Do we not, then, say that the invisible powers, and the souls of human beings, and even the demons themselves, are immortal? Orthodoxos: We do; but God is immortal in the proper sense, for he is immortal by substance, not by participation; he does not have immortality as something received from another. It is he who has given immortality to the angels and to the others you just mentioned. If, then, the inspired Paul names him immortal, and says that he alone has immortality, how do you fit the passion of death to him? Eranistes: We say that he tasted death after the incarnation. Orthodoxos: But we have often agreed that he is immutable. And if, being immortal before, he afterwards underwent death through flesh, he underwent death with change going before it, and his life too failed for three days and as many nights. And what excess of impiety does saying this leave out? I think that not even for those who contend against impiety is it without danger to bring these words onto the tongue. Eranistes: [No;] for we do not say that the divine nature suffered, but the human; and that the divine suffered together with the body. Orthodoxos: How do you mean “suffered together”? That, as the nails were driven into the body, the divine nature received the sensation of the pain? … Orthodoxos: Both now and in what we examined earlier, we have shown that not even the soul shares in all that the body undergoes; but that the body, receiving the life-giving power, has the sensation of its sufferings through the soul. And even if we were to grant that the soul feels pain together with the body, we shall find the divine nature no less impassible. For it was not joined to the body in place of a soul. Or do you not agree that he assumed a soul? … Orthodoxos: And a rational soul? … Orthodoxos: If, then, he assumed the soul together with the body, and we granted that the soul suffers together with the body, then it was the soul that suffered with the body, not the Godhead, receiving, as is likely, the pains through the body. But one might perhaps say that the soul suffers with the body, but in no way that it dies with it; for it received an immortal nature. For this reason the Lord too said, “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.” If, then, we say that not even the Saviour’s soul shared death with the body, how could anyone accept the blasphemy you venture, which dares to say that the divine nature partook of death — and this when the Lord points out now the body being offered, now the soul being troubled …

Eranistes: And where did the Lord point out the body being offered? Or will you again bring us your much-repeated testimony, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,” and present the evangelist to us with a swagger, saying, “But he was speaking about the temple of his body. When, therefore, he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that Jesus had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that the Lord had spoken”? Orthodoxos: If you are so very hostile to the divine words that proclaim the great mystery of the dispensation, why do you not, like Marcion and Valentinus and Mani, erase such words? For they did this very thing. But if this seems bold and unholy, do not mock the Lord’s words, but follow the apostles, who believed after the resurrection that the Godhead raised the temple that the Jews had destroyed. Eranistes: If you have strong testimony, stop reviling and fulfil your promise. Orthodoxos: You surely remember those sayings in the Gospel in which the Lord compared the manna with the true food. … Orthodoxos: In that passage, after he had gone through many words about the bread of life, he added this as well: “And the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” And one can see in these words both the generosity of the Godhead and the gift of the flesh. Eranistes: One testimony is not enough to settle the dispute … Orthodoxos: The Ethiopian eunuch did not read many Scriptures; he found one prophetic testimony and was guided by it to salvation. But all the apostles and prophets, and those who became heralds of the truth after them, are not able to persuade you. Nevertheless I will bring you other testimonies too about the Lord’s body. You surely know that passage of the Gospel history where, having eaten the Passover with the disciples, he showed the end of the lamb that was a type, and taught what the body of that shadow is. Eranistes: I know this history. Orthodoxos: Then remember what the Lord took and broke, and what he called that which he had taken. Eranistes: Because of the uninitiated, I shall speak rather in the manner of the mysteries. Having taken and broken it, and distributed it to the disciples, he said, “This is my body, which is given for you,” or “broken,” according to the Apostle; and again, “This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many.” Orthodoxos: Then in showing the type of the passion he did not mention Godhead? … Orthodoxos: But body and blood? … Orthodoxos: So it was a body that was nailed to the cross? … Orthodoxos: Come, let us add this too. When after the resurrection the Lord came in to the holy disciples while the doors were shut, and saw them afraid, in what way did he dispel the fear and put faith in place of fear?

Eranistes: He said to them, “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” Orthodoxos: So he showed them the body when they disbelieved? … Orthodoxos: So it was the body that was raised? … Orthodoxos: And what rose had surely also died? … Orthodoxos: And what had died was what was nailed to the cross? … Orthodoxos: So it was the body that suffered, by your own argument at least. Eranistes: The chain of the arguments forces one to say this. Orthodoxos: Let us consider it this way too. I will ask again, and you answer as a lover of the truth. … Orthodoxos: When the all-holy Spirit came upon the apostles, and the extraordinary sight and sound gathered many tens of thousands of people at that house, what did the first of the apostles, addressing the people then, say about the Lord’s resurrection? Eranistes: He brought forward the inspired David, and said that he had received promises from the God of the universe that Christ the Lord would spring from the fruit of his loins; and that, having believed them, he foresaw prophetically his resurrection and said expressly that his soul was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. Orthodoxos: The resurrection, then, belongs to these. Eranistes: And how could anyone of sound mind speak of the resurrection of a soul that has not died? Orthodoxos: You who say that both the passion and the death and the resurrection belong to the immutable and uncircumscribed Godhead, how have you suddenly appeared so sound of mind as to refuse to attach the name of resurrection even to the soul? Eranistes: Because the name of resurrection fits what has fallen. Orthodoxos: But the body does not obtain resurrection without the soul; it is renewed by the divine will and joined to its yoke-fellow, and so recovers life. Or did the Lord not raise Lazarus in this way? Eranistes: Clearly it is not the body alone that rises. Orthodoxos: The divine Ezekiel teaches this more clearly. For he shows how God commanded the bones to come together, and how each of them recovered its own fitting, and sinews grew, and veins, and arteries, and the flesh laid underneath between them, and the skin as a covering for them all, and then the souls returned to their own [bodies] … Orthodoxos: The Lord’s body, however, did not undergo this corruption, but remained undefiled and received back its own soul on the third day. … Orthodoxos: Therefore the passion belongs to those to which the death also belongs? … Orthodoxos: And when the great Peter, and indeed the divine David, mentioned the resurrection, did they say that the soul was not abandoned to Hades, and that the body did not undergo corruption? … Orthodoxos: So it was not the Godhead that underwent death, but the body, by the separation of the soul. Eranistes: I for one will not tolerate these absurd words. Orthodoxos: Then you are fighting your own words; for of these words, which you called absurd, not one is mine; they are yours.