Eranistes (The Beggar), or Polymorphus 3.4–3.11

Orthodoxos: Nor would the Father ever become the Son. Orthodoxos: Nor would the Holy Spirit become Son or Father. Eranistes: All these are impossible. Orthodoxos: And we find many other such things likewise impossible. For neither will the eternal come under time, nor the uncreated become created and made, nor the infinite be limited, nor anything else akin to these. Eranistes: None of these is possible. Orthodoxos: We have found, then, that many things are impossible for [God]. … Orthodoxos: But not being able to do any of these is evidence of infinite power, not of weakness; whereas being able to would surely be evidence of powerlessness, not of power. Eranistes: How do you mean this? Orthodoxos: Because each of these proclaims the immutability and unalterability of God. For that the good cannot become evil signifies the surpassing greatness of his goodness; and that the just would never become unjust, nor the truthful a liar, shows his steadiness and firmness in truth and righteousness. So the true light would not become darkness, nor he who is become one who is not; for he has enduring being, and the light is unalterable. If you examine all the other cases in the same way, you will find that “not being able” expresses supreme power. So too the divine Apostle understood and set down such “not being able” in the case of God. For writing to the Hebrews he says, “so that through two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have strong encouragement,” showing that the impossible is not weak but exceedingly powerful. For he is so truthful, he means, that it is impossible for falsehood ever to arise in him. So the power of the truth is signified by the impossible. And writing to the blessed Timothy he also added this: “The saying is trustworthy: for if we have died with him, we shall also live with him; if we endure, we shall also reign with him; [if we deny him, he also will deny] us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself.” Again, then, “he cannot” indicates infinite power. For even if all human beings deny him, he means, he is God and does not depart from his own nature; for he has indestructible being. This is what “he cannot deny himself” shows. Therefore the impossibility of change for the worse displays an abundance of power. Eranistes: This is true, and in accord with the divine words. Orthodoxos: If, then, many things are impossible for God, as many as are contrary to the divine nature, why, leaving all the other attributes as they are by nature — the good, the just, the true, the invisible, the unattainable, the uncircumscribed, the eternal, and all the others we say belong to God — do you say that immortality and impassibility alone are changeable, and grant in their case the possibility of alteration, and ascribe to God a power …

Eranistes: We were taught this by the divine Scripture. For the divine John cries out, “God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son.” And the inspired Paul: “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.” Orthodoxos: These things are indeed true, for they are divine oracles. But remember what we have often agreed. … Orthodoxos: That we agreed that the Son of God, God the Word, did not appear without a body, but having assumed a complete human nature. … these things. Orthodoxos: If, then, he took a human body and soul, for this reason he was also called Son of Man. … Orthodoxos: Then the Lord Jesus Christ is truly [man] and also our God; for of these natures he always had the one, and the other he truly took. … these things. Orthodoxos: Therefore as man he endured the passion; as God he remained above passion. Eranistes: How, then, does the divine Scripture say that the Son of God suffered? Orthodoxos: Because the body that suffered was his body. Let us consider it this way. When we hear the divine Scripture say, “It came to pass, after Isaac had grown old, that his eyes were dimmed so that he could not see,” where is our mind carried, and on what does it rest: on Isaac’s soul, or on his body? Eranistes: Clearly on the body. … [the soul] shared in the affliction of blindness? Orthodoxos: But we say that only the body was deprived of the sense of sight. … Orthodoxos: And again, when we hear Amaziah saying to the prophet Amos, “Seer, go away into the land of Judah,” and also Saul asking, “Where is the house of the seer?” we suspect nothing bodily. … Yet the names belonging to the faculty of sight … indicative of a part … of health. Orthodoxos: But we know nevertheless that the working of the Spirit, granted to purer souls, instils the prophetic grace; and this grace makes them see even hidden things, and seeing these things caused them to be called “seers” and “beholders.” … Orthodoxos: Then let us consider this too. … Orthodoxos: When we hear the history in the divine Gospels relating that they brought to God a paralytic lying on a bed, do we say that the loosening of the limbs belonged to the soul or to the body? Eranistes: Clearly to the body. Orthodoxos: But when, reading the Epistle to the Hebrews, we come upon the passage where the Apostle says, “Therefore lift up the drooping hands and the paralyzed knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be turned aside but rather be healed,” shall we say that the divine [Apostle] said this about the parts of the body? … Orthodoxos: Shall we say that he is rooting out the slackness and cowardice of the soul, and whetting the disciples to courage?

Orthodoxos: But we do not find these things distinguished in the divine Scripture. For when it told of Isaac’s blindness it did not mention the body, but simply said that Isaac was blind; nor, when it called the prophets “beholders” and “seers,” did it say that their souls saw and beheld hidden things, but it named the persons themselves. Eranistes: That is so. Orthodoxos: Nor did it show that the paralytic’s body was loosened, but it called the man a paralytic. … Orthodoxos: Nor did the divine Apostle mention souls by name when he wished to strengthen and rouse them. … Orthodoxos: But we, searching out the sense of the words, recognize which things are proper to the soul and which to the body. Eranistes: And rightly so; for God made us rational. Orthodoxos: Let us, then, use this reason also in the case of him who made and saved us, and recognize which things belong to his Godhead and which to his humanity. Eranistes: But in doing this very thing, [we would destroy] that supreme [union] … Orthodoxos: And yet when we did this in the case of Isaac, and of the prophets, and of the paralytic, and of the others, we did not dissolve the natural union of soul and body, nor did we separate the souls from their own bodies; we only discerned in thought what is proper to the soul and what to the body. How, then, is it not shocking that we, who do this in the case of souls and bodies, should refuse to do it in the case of our Saviour, and should instead confuse the natures because of their difference — natures that differ from each other not as much as soul differs from body, but as much as the recent stands apart from the eternal, and the made from the Maker? Eranistes: The divine Scripture says that the Son of God endured the passion. Orthodoxos: Nor do we say that anyone else suffered. Yet we know, having been taught by the divine Scripture, that the nature of the Godhead is impassible. So when we hear of impassibility and of passion, and of the union of humanity and Godhead, we say that the passion belongs to the passible body, and we confess that the impassible nature remained free from the passion. Eranistes: So a body procured our salvation for us. Orthodoxos: Not the body of a mere man, but of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God. If you think this small and paltry, how do you regard its type as venerable and saving? And if the type is to be worshipped and revered, how can the archetype itself be contemptible and small? Eranistes: I do not regard the body as paltry, but I cannot bear to divide it from the Godhead. Orthodoxos: Nor do we, my good friend, divide the union; we consider the properties of the natures. And you too, surely, will agree with this presently. … Orthodoxos: Not as a prophet, but because I know the power of the truth. But answer me this too, as I ask you first: when you hear the Lord say, “I and the Father are one,” and, “He who has seen me has seen the Father,” do you say that these are properties of the flesh or of the Godhead?

Eranistes: And how is it possible for the flesh and the Father to be one in substance? Orthodoxos: These words, then, indicate the Godhead. … Orthodoxos: And “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God,” and the sayings like these? … Orthodoxos: But again, when the divine Scripture says, “Jesus, wearied from the journey, was sitting thus by the spring,” to whom must we take the weariness to belong: to the Godhead, or to the body? Eranistes: I cannot bear to divide what has been united. Orthodoxos: Then it seems you attach the weariness to the divine nature? Eranistes: So it seems to me. Orthodoxos: But you flatly contradict the prophet, who cries, “He will not hunger, nor grow weary, nor is there any searching out of his understanding; he gives strength to the hungry, and grief to those who are not in pain.” And a little after: “But those who wait for me will renew their strength; they will grow wings like an eagle; they will run, and …” How, then, did he who grants to others freedom from need and from weariness himself endure the affliction of weariness, and of thirst, and of hunger? Eranistes: I have said many times that as God he is impassible and without need, but after the incarnation he submitted to the passions. Orthodoxos: Receiving the passions in the Godhead, or [in the flesh, allowing] the [flesh] to suffer, and proclaiming by its suffering that what was seen was no phantom, but was truly taken from human nature? Let us consider it this way. Do we say that the divine nature is uncircumscribed? … Orthodoxos: And the uncircumscribed nature is circumscribed by nothing. Eranistes: Indeed not … Orthodoxos: And what has no need of moving from place to place does not [walk] … Orthodoxos: And what does not walk does not grow weary. … Orthodoxos: Then the divine nature did not grow weary, since it is uncircumscribed and has no need of walking. Eranistes: But the divine Scripture records that Jesus grew weary; and Jesus is God, “for there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.” Orthodoxos: Since, then, the divine Scripture says both that he grew weary and that he does not grow weary, we must consider how this and how that can be [ascribed] to the one person. Eranistes: You show this; for you [bring in] the [terms] of division … since the union of unlike natures has been confessed, the person of Christ receives both these things and those because of the union, but to each nature what suits it is fitted: to the uncircumscribed, freedom from weariness; to the nature that moves from place to place and walks, the weariness. For walking is proper to feet, and being strained by excessive labor is proper to sinews. Eranistes: It is agreed that these are bodily sufferings. Orthodoxos: True, then, was that prediction which I made and you mocked. For look, you have shown us what belongs to the humanity and what to the Godhead. Eranistes: But I did not divide the one into two sons. Orthodoxos: Nor do we do this, my friend; but looking at the difference of the natures, we consider what is fitting to the Godhead and what suits the body.

Eranistes: The divine Scripture did not teach us to divide in this way, but said that the Son of God died. For so the Apostle said: “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son.” And he said that the Lord was raised from the dead: “For God,” he says, “both raised the Lord …” Orthodoxos: When, then, the [divine] Scripture says, “[Devout men buried Stephen] and made great lamentation over him,” would anyone say that the soul too was buried together with the body? … Orthodoxos: And when you hear the patriarch Jacob say, “Bury me with my fathers,” do you think these words were said about the body or about the soul? … Orthodoxos: Read what follows as well. Eranistes: “There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife; and there they buried Isaac and Rebekah his wife; and there they buried Leah.” Orthodoxos: Not even in these words that you have just read did the divine Scripture mention the body; by the names it indicated soul and body together. Yet we rightly distinguish, and say that the souls are immortal, and that only the bodies of the patriarchs were laid in the double cave. … Orthodoxos: And when we hear the history of the Acts relating that Herod killed James the brother of John with the sword, [we by no means think] that the [soul] too … Eranistes: How could we, who remember the Lord’s [saying] — “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul”? Orthodoxos: Does it not seem to you impious and shocking that we, when we hear human names, do not always understand soul and body together, nor, when the Scripture tells of death and burial, bury the soul in thought with the body, but think that these belong to the body alone, and know the immortality of the soul, believing the Lord’s teaching; but that when we hear of the passion of the Son of God we do not do this as well, but make no mention at all of the body, to which the passion belongs, and declare in word that the divine nature — the impassible, immutable, and immortal — is mortal and passible; and this though we know that, if the nature of God the Word were capable of suffering, the assumption of the body would be superfluous …? Eranistes: We have learned from the divine Scripture that the Son of God endured the passion.

Orthodoxos: And yet the divine Apostle explains the passion and points out the nature that suffered. Eranistes: Show it, then, as quickly as possible, and settle the dispute. Orthodoxos: Do you not know that passage of the Epistle written to the Hebrews, where the inspired Paul says, “Therefore he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying, ‘I will proclaim your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise’”; and again, “Behold, I and the children whom God has given me”? Eranistes: I know these words, but there is nothing in them of what [you promised]. Orthodoxos: Yet these words too hint at what I promised to show. For the name of brotherhood indicates kinship, and the assumed nature brought about the kinship; and the assumption plainly proclaims the impassibility of the Godhead. But so that I may teach you this more clearly, read what follows. Eranistes: “Since, then, the children have shared in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, and deliver those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.” Orthodoxos: I think these words need no explanation; for they plainly teach the mystery of the dispensation. Eranistes: I have seen in them nothing of what you promised to show. Orthodoxos: And yet the divine Apostle taught expressly that the Maker, pitying the nature of human beings, which was not only bitterly seized by death but was also enslaved to it all its life long, procured resurrection for bodies through a body, and through a mortal nature destroyed the dominion of death. For since he himself had an immortal nature, he wished to end the power of death justly, taking a firstfruits from those subject to death; and having kept this firstfruits unblemished and uninitiated into sin, he allows death to seize this too and to fill up its insatiable greed; but because of its injustice against this firstfruits, he ended its unjust tyranny over the others as well. For by raising the firstfruits that had been unjustly swallowed up, he will cause the race to follow it. Set this interpretation beside the apostolic words, and you will see the impassibility of the Godhead. Eranistes: Nothing about the divine impassibility is shown in the words that have been read. Orthodoxos: Does not the divine Apostle’s saying, that he shared in flesh and blood with the children for this reason, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, clearly show the impassibility of the Godhead and the passibility of the flesh — that, since the divine nature could not suffer, he took the nature that could suffer, and through it broke the power of the devil? Eranistes: How did he break both the power of the devil and the dominion of death through the flesh? … [Orthodoxos: … By what means did the devil] … enslave human nature? Eranistes: Through sin he took captive the citizen established in paradise. Orthodoxos: And what penalty did God fix for the transgression of the commandment? … Orthodoxos: Then sin is the mother of death, and the devil is its father.

Orthodoxos: By sin, then, the nature of human beings was warred upon. For sin, enslaving those who obeyed it, both brought them to their all-wicked father and handed them over [to death] … Orthodoxos: Fittingly, then, the Maker, wishing to destroy both tyrannies, assumed the nature that was warred upon by them, and showed it free from all sin, and through it destroyed the power of the devil. For since death was the punishment of sinners, and death had unjustly snatched away, against the divine law, the Lord’s body, which had no stain of sin, he first raised what had been lawlessly held fast, and then promised release also to those justly imprisoned. Eranistes: And how does it seem just to you that bodies justly handed over to death should share in the resurrection of the one lawlessly held fast? Orthodoxos: And how does it seem just to you that, when Adam had transgressed the commandment, [the race] should follow the [forefather] …? Eranistes: Even if the race did not share in that transgression, it committed other sins, and for that reason partook of death. Orthodoxos: And yet not only sinners, but also the righteous, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and those who shone in different kinds of virtue, have fallen into the nets of death. Eranistes: How could those sprung from mortal fathers remain immortal? For Adam, after the transgression and the divine sentence, having come under the dominion of death, knew his wife and became a father. Having become mortal, then, he became the father of mortals. Fittingly, then, all who received a mortal nature follow their forefather. Orthodoxos: You have shown us excellently the cause of our sharing in death. This same thing, then, must be granted in the case of the resurrection too. For the remedy must suit the affliction. Just as, when the founder of the race was condemned, the whole race was condemned with him, so, when the Saviour lifted the curse, the nature enjoyed freedom. And just as those who shared his nature followed Adam when he went down to Hades, so the whole nature of human beings will share in the return to life with Christ the Lord, who rose. … to speak the doctrines of the Church. Show, then, the divine Scripture teaching these things. Orthodoxos: Hear the Apostle writing to the Romans, and through them teaching all human beings: “For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more has the grace of God and the gift in the grace of the one man Jesus Christ abounded for the many. And the gift is not as through the one who sinned; for the judgment came from one trespass to condemnation, but the free gift from many trespasses to justification. For if by the trespass of the one death reigned through the one, much more will those who [receive] the abundance of grace also reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ.” And again: “So then, as through one trespass [it came] to all human beings to condemnation, so also through one act of righteousness to all human beings to justification of life. For as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one the many will be made righteous.” And writing to the Corinthians his discourse on the resurrection, he reveals to them the mystery of the dispensation in summary, and says: “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.” See, I have brought you the proofs from the divine oracles too. Look, then, at the things of Christ set beside those of Adam: the cure beside the disease, the remedy beside the wound, the wealth of righteousness beside the sin, the blessing beside the curse, the forgiveness beside the condemnation, the keeping of the commandment beside the transgression, life beside death, the kingdom beside Hades, Christ beside Adam, man beside man. And yet Christ the Lord is not only man, but also God before the ages; but the divine Apostle named him from the nature that was assumed, since to this nature belonged the struggle, to this the victory, to this the sufferings, to this the death, to this the resurrection; in this nature we share; with this nature those who have practised beforehand the way of life of the kingdom will reign with him. I said “with this” not separating the Godhead, but stating the properties of the humanity.

Eranistes: You have gone through many arguments about this … [if,] then, the passion truly belongs to the flesh, how does the divine Apostle cry out in praise of God’s love for humankind, “He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all”? What son did he say was given up? Orthodoxos: Hush, man! For there is one Son of God; and for this reason he has been called Only-begotten. Eranistes: If, then, there is one Son of God, the divine Apostle called him his own Son. … Eranistes: So he said that he himself was given up. Orthodoxos: He himself, but not without a body, as we have often agreed. Eranistes: It has often been agreed that he took a body and a soul. Orthodoxos: Then the Apostle spoke about what happened to the body. Eranistes: The Apostle [says] very plainly, “He who did not spare his own Son.” Orthodoxos: When, then, you hear God saying to Abraham, “Because you did not spare your beloved son for my sake,” do you say that Isaac was slaughtered? … Orthodoxos: And yet God said, “You did not spare”; and the God of the universe is truthful. Eranistes: [He said] “you did not spare” of Abraham’s eagerness … [he was ready to sacrifice the] boy, but God prevented it. Orthodoxos: Just as, then, in the story of Abraham you did not put up with the bare letter, but unfolded it and made the sense clear, so also search out the aim of the apostolic saying. For you will see that it was by no means the divine nature that was not spared, but the flesh that was nailed to the wood. And it is easy to see the truth even in the type. Does the sacrifice of Abraham seem to you to be a type of the offering made for the world …? Eranistes: Not at all. For I do not make a rule of doctrine out of what is said in festal oratory in the churches. Orthodoxos: You ought above all to follow the teachers of the Church. But since you resist them, and do not do well in it, hear at least the Saviour himself saying to the Jews, “Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day; and he saw it and was glad”; and consider how the Lord calls the passion his “day.” Eranistes: I have accepted the Lord’s testimony, and I believe the type. Orthodoxos: Set the type, then, beside the truth, and you will see even in the type the impassibility of the Godhead. For there is a father here and there, and likewise a beloved son here and there, and each carrying the material of the sacrifice: the one carried the wood, the other the cross on his shoulders. They say, too, that the summit of the mountain was honored with both sacrifices; the number of the days and nights also agrees, and the resurrection after them. For Isaac, slain by his father’s eagerness from the very day on which the generous Giver commanded it to be done, on the third day came back to life in figure by the voice of the Lover of humankind; and a ram was seen caught in a bush, showing the image of the cross, and it endured the slaughter in place of the boy. If these things are a type of the truth, and in the type the only son did not undergo slaughter, but a ram was brought in instead and offered on the altar and completed the mystery of the sacrifice, why do you not here too assign the passion to the flesh and proclaim the impassibility of the Godhead?