The Apocriticus (Answers to the Pagan Critic) 3.26–3.34

[The Christian (Macarius) answers the objection on “Throw yourself down” (3.18).] As for the next heading, which asks about the saying spoken maliciously by the devil concerning Christ, where he says, “Throw yourself down,” let it now please you to consider the nature of the matter as far as possible. The story contains a demonic temptation; and again, it is never right for a contestant to accept his opponent's advice (for he would seem defeated, making a truce at the enemy's word); he must altogether hate and loathe his antagonist. For even if it would have been a very great achievement for Christ to throw himself from the height, it carries much blame and slander for the wrestler to compete under the rules of his opponent, the demon who is the author of evil. So even if this had been written about Christ, Jesus ought not to have done it at the devil's prompting; for then the deed would have been a joint one — the one saying, “Throw yourself down,” and the other throwing himself without delay; and if joint, then necessarily friendly, being done by a common resolve. And see, besides, the disorder in the matter; see the confusion of the great mishap: on hearing a prophetic passage set in motion by the devil, Christ would have fulfilled what was said, as though persuaded by an earnest teacher and orator! Alas for the folly! Alas for the misdeed! The athlete, before the contests, makes a friendly truce with his opponent's words; the dragon hisses and the beast calls, forging muddy words of error, and Christ welcomes them and embraces the law of what was said! See clearly how great an account of loss arises from this. For if Christ had accepted this advice as good, he would also have accepted the next as good, doing evil unwillingly as though it were good. And this was the one about “If you fall down and worship me.” For it would not have been possible for the Saviour to refuse this, after yielding obediently in what went before. For since the devil had said to him, “Make the stones bread,” and “Throw yourself down,” it would have been necessary, when the devil said “Worship,” for him not to refuse, held fast by his earlier obedience. For one persuaded in the two earlier cases as though they were good would plainly have been persuaded in the third as good, and would have worshipped, denying the nature of the divine being. For the whole effort and art of the demon was to put two plausible proposals to Christ, so that, having made him obedient in these, he might find him ready and obedient in what followed. But Jesus, seeing his wickedness from afar, at once beat off the skirmishing of the temptations. For even though the passage spoken of him was prophetic, he does not do it, because of the wickedness that would follow, so that he might not perish by receiving a mortal blow from his own darts hurled by Beliar. For that the prophetic oracle belongs to the Saviour himself and was spoken of him is clear to everyone; and that the devil, like an enemy who had stolen a soldier's quiver, was shooting with it at the King of the ages, wishing to slaughter him with his own weapons, is also obvious and plain to all. So Christ, seeing his own armour made ready against him, thrust it away, so that he might not be overcome by it and worship the impious one. For this reason, my friend, Christ did not throw himself down from the temple. So much on this.

[The Christian (Macarius) answers the objection on “Get behind me, Satan” (3.19) and on Peter's falls (3.20).] The matters concerning Peter must now be examined; for they truly need examination and much explanation. If the foundation of the apostles has been shaken by such a din, if the summit of the gospel events has been confounded by such a cloud of unpleasantness — if Peter has been called by Christ a stumbling block, Satan, and an offence, if Peter is convicted of having sinned unpardonably — then the whole choir of the apostles has been slandered, and the root of the faith is all but torn up. We must, then, see the time and the place in which this was said, so that we may judge the matter and feel our way to its sense. In Caesarea called Philippi he asked the disciples who men said he was. They said to him, “Some John, some Elijah, some one of the prophets.” Then he said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Christ, seeing Peter so suddenly made brilliant by the Father's grace and so great a divine revelation come upon him, gives him the promise of an undoubting faith and raises him up with a weighty blessing, saying, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood has not revealed to you” the unspeakable mystery of so great a matter — nor any of the angels, nor a prefect of the bodiless ranks, nor any minister of the powers above the world, but the unspeakable and everlasting Good itself, the immortal spring of our being, the Father in heaven. “So receive a name worthy of the grace, and be Peter, showing to the whole world an unconquerable rock that cannot be shaken, since you possess an immovable mind and reasoning, having borne witness today to the unshakable nature of the blessed being.” The deceiving beast, it is likely, hearing these words and the witness Peter gave to the Saviour, made every effort to strip Peter of his dignity by contrivance, to overturn the witness to Christ by sophistic deceit, and to alter the economy of the Passion. For he knew — knew clearly — that the Passion of Christ is the destruction of his tyrannical wickedness, and so he wished to obstruct the cross. So, sowing unclear words in Peter, he said, “Mercy on you, Lord; this shall not happen to you.” And Jesus, knowing that the word was not Peter's but that what was said was a suggestion of Satan, said, “Get behind me, Satan” — so that he might now recognize his own name and be driven far from the choir of the disciples, he says, “Get behind me, Satan; for all that is before you has been cut off.” This to Satan; but to Peter he says, “You are a stumbling block to me, because you do not think the things of God but the things of men,” since he had been persuaded by the suggestion of Beliar, the author of evil. So much on the saying to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan.” For by receiving a rebuke worthy of his error and being put to shame, he greatly benefited the disciples, so that no one in the future might whisper pettily about the greatness of the economy. For he who a little before, with the bright and gleaming eye of faith, had peered beyond the very vault of the heavens, passed beyond the fiery rivers of the Seraphim, and seen the nobility of the Only-begotten Son shining with the Father above the beauty of the bodiless ministers, and had greatly profited in soul from it and uttered in faith the genuine word of confession — when suddenly, at the suggestion of an envious counsellor, to the harm of the world and the loss of all, he offered useless sympathy, lamenting what was not right and saying off-hand, “Mercy on you, Lord,” he rightly received this rebuke from Christ. What would each of the others, misled, have supposed would happen, seeing Peter declare to the hearers that the one present was the Son of God, and yet wish him as a man to live on for a long time, the Holy One to linger unbecomingly on the earth, and, without completing the economy of the Passion, to help the poverty of men and to succour the poverty of the fallen …, and to make a swift and short return to the watchtower above and receive his own throne of the kingdom — but instead, persuaded by Peter's word, to dwell on in this low hut and embrace this insulted way of life, this truly painful and accursed life, and to wait for the common death late, having declined, on Peter's advice, the death laid upon him that was full of the salvation of the economy? So rightly he greatly rebuked the one who had greatly believed, and greatly grieved the wonderful Peter who had greatly stumbled. For when he said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” he raised him to the very summit of dignity, making him key-keeper and chamberlain of the kingdom above. For it was fitting that one who knew the King seated solemnly within the undefiled palace should receive the authority to shut and to open: to interpret to those who come, as one who knew the strength of the Better, and to exclude, reasonably, as one who knew them, those not fit for the blessed vision. For he who has gazed on the root of immortality and beheld the ever-flowing spring of life rightly receives the charge of their entrance and exit. For the way Peter phrased his words, with the article, secured the exactness of the divine doctrine, showing the unshakable power of the monarchy and keeping the image of the truth unadulterated. For Peter said not “You are a Christ” but “the Christ,” not “You are a Son” but “the Son,” not “of a God” but “of the God,” not “of a living one” but “of the living one”; crying out everything with the article, and the more loudly, he showed the excellence of the blessed being and the property of the single nature. Truly the words are a revelation of the heavenly Father; truly an only-begotten voice bearing witness to the Only-begotten. For there are many christs, but one truly so called with the article; and there are many sons, many gods, many living, but one alone truly living and Son of God, when it has the article. So the angels are often called sons of God without the article, honoured with the title; but the Only-begotten is one, and to him alone has the article borne exact witness. So too there are many gods and many lords, but none of them is God or Creator or Lord, lacking the article; there is one God the Maker and one Lord the King, who has the article that establishes uniqueness. So Peter, taught this mystery not by blood or flesh, but learning exactly from the Holy Spirit the things of the Father and the Son, cries out and bears witness to the Godhead with the article. Therefore he is called blessed and named Peter, proclaiming the immovability of the unshakable rock. Seeing him so great and so high, the demon who hates the good rages against him, is consumed with envy, and devises every engine of deceit to trip up the one who has stepped onto the rock and stands firm on it — now persuading him, as a man, to utter things unworthy of the promise, now urging him to an unbecoming sympathy. So Christ at once corrected him for his untimely word and branded him with a very stern rebuke. So too at the attack of the high priests, when Peter was overcome by feeling and struck someone's ear with the sword, Christ rebuked him not a little by healing the wound. So, when he erred rashly with his tongue, he did not condemn him for the words he uttered, but judged him by the longing of his soul that he saw, knowing that the mind is not able to restrain what stammers and rushes in love.

[The Christian (Macarius) answers the objection on the death of Ananias and Sapphira (3.21).] As for the judgment that came about through him in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, if you would like the story read to you, what was done will appear to you an act for the good of all and a lesson for many. For Ananias, having taken into his soul a disease of wickedness, secretly shared it with his wife as well. The gift of the gospel was then being proclaimed there to men, and the heralds were leading their own people by the rule of godliness; the whole multitude was amazed at the marvels, and the report of what was being done, spreading beyond the borders, stirred men's minds. For many prodigies and astonishing signs drew the eyes of those who saw them and charmed the eagerness of those who heard, so that almost the whole nation rushed to the common enjoyment of salvation: they took up the love of the goods above the world, despised the things here by a better reasoning, threw away every disputed possession on earth, and as if on the wing of eagerness took heaven itself as their dwelling, embracing a life shared with the angels. From this a bright resolve and a clear and unadulterated mind appeared; from this house and field and estate hastened to be watered by the stream of grace; from this they considered the bodily possession of things a burden and a loss to their souls; from this the contest for good things brooked no delay; from this life was shared and the possession of property undivided; from this a mingling of wealth and poverty, of giving and receiving, steered the human flock; from this to have as though not having, and not to have as though having, was judged the most splendid glory. All, as it were, had passed over to a blessed life and existence, their souls burning with divine heat, wholly unable to bear their thirst for what is better. It was a festival; what was done then was heavenly; there was a theatre of godliness such as had never been. Wealth was then hateful, and the possession of property despised. In a word, the word of the apostles' teaching shone beyond the sun, lighting up the hidden things of conscience, so that all rushed to so great a festival of good things, and the soul of the many appeared as one through the mediation of the Spirit, their life being blended with a spiritual disposition. While things were so and affairs were being so skilfully steered, Ananias with Sapphira, together with his wife, became a sharer in this great feast and in the astonishing works. Since many were giving their property to the apostles in the name of Christ, so that the poor might not be slow to come to the common faith on the pretext of their need, but, finding the use of necessities abundant, might come over to the preaching on equal terms with those who had, he too, having property in a field, wished to sell it, judging the whole price to be an offering. What, then, he had given to Christ by his own choice, he was no longer master to appropriate. For such a thing is sacrilege: to give the property to God with all knowing, and then secretly, with no one knowing, to filch part of it like a slave. For no one is ever caught stealing what is his own, nor is one praised for secretly taking what he has authority over; the thing in itself is not bad, but the intention behind the thing is condemned. So, lest Ananias's audacity, if pardoned then, should harm the whole gathering of the believers by throwing them all into a like sickness, Peter lays bare the disease before the eyes of those present — not to cleanse the earlier offence (for that had already been committed), but to overturn the disease that was coming and to teach those who had just believed, imitating a capable physician who cuts out by the roots a spreading disease in a great body and restores the whole to health and strength. So the wrong done was not against Peter (and therefore it did not receive the pardon of kindness), but the audacity was against the Divine itself, and aimed at shaking the faith from the root. Moreover, Ananias himself, with his wife, had the proof of judgment not taken place, would have fallen into a bottomless pit of scandal. For at once, had he not been convicted, he would have supposed that Christ has no knowledge of what is done in secret and does not know the account of good or evil; and from this he would have forged a grievous doctrine in the inner shrine of his soul, considering only what is at hand and base, and saying: “If the Divine does not notice what men do by stealth, what prevents anyone from doing whatever most shameful thing profits him, since there is no account, no proof, and no accuser of it anywhere?” And so, with his mind ill disposed, he would have dared every outrageous deed and would have done every lawless wickedness of impiety, making himself the lawgiver of the verdict, and over a long time would have made many partners in such an accursed opinion, falling on them then like a great and incurable plague and consuming them all. So, so that this tragedy might not happen to the believers there, Peter, knowing it, quickly cuts out the disease, cutting out with it the sickness of wickedness that was coming. For like a growth of thorns secretly creeping among the crops of the field and about to grieve the farmer's labour, he pulled it up by the roots, freeing the rational field from harm. Hear at once what Peter says to Ananias: “Why is it,” he says, “that you agreed to tempt the Holy Spirit?” You see that he tested whether the Divine knows what is done or fails to notice it. And on hearing this he breathed his last on the spot, abandoned by the Spirit who boils with love, and chilled by the cold winter of wickedness. For Peter did not order Ananias to be struck down with the sword by sentence, as you said; he only said, “Why is it that you agreed to tempt the Holy Spirit?” and his conscience struck his soul and destroyed it. Justly, then, Ananias, dying unmanfully, and Sapphira, who became the occasion of the disaster, brought the multitude of believers to sober sense, and Peter is not responsible for what both suffered.

[The Christian (Macarius) answers the objection on Peter's escape from prison and Paul's rebuke (3.22).] Next let us see the wonderful prodigies concerning his imprisonment: how Herod shut him in but could not hold him, though he was currying favour with the Jews and wished to punish him in public. For arming himself with a madness that fights against Christ, he killed James with the sword without cause; and, eager to murder the great one in a great theatre, he meanwhile kept him in prison, so that he might stir up anew over him a great swarm of the Jews' disorder. But an angel from heaven, with noiseless presence, entering at the very middle of the night, as the account says, roused Peter from sleep, girded him, led him out of the prison, and persuaded him to save himself, making void Herod's outlandish preparations. For the angel fettered the guards with sleep, loosed Peter from the chain without effort, and opening the prison gate from its bolt sent him out to the gate of life. For he did not flee, as you said, out of fear of death; he was waiting for the appointed time of his end, and judged that he should first preach Christ the King in the ruling city, and then receive there the celebrated death of the cross. A great lamp had first to shine on those in ignorance, and at the end, as on the great lampstand of that city, to light the torch of martyrdom. For the sake of this wise proceeding the universal plan of the economy did not allow the leader of the gospel grace to fall under Herod's wickedness, but had him slip away from the perversity of the Jews and gather the company of the Gentiles. So he was not shown to be the cause of punishment for the guards: a deer that escapes the meshes of the nets does not persuade the shepherd to kill his hounds. Then Herod in his madness kills the soldiers; he does it imitating his own frenzy, not taking his savagery from Peter, since a lion roused by someone does not get its anger and agitation from him, having the snorting of its impulse by nature. So Peter is found everywhere doing everything, in deed and word, for the sake of what is profitable. If he ate with the Gentiles before the Jews arrived, and after their arrival turned away from eating with them, he is seen to do this not for himself but for the sake of those being saved, from the Jews and from the Gentiles alike. For since the Jews honoured the law, abstaining from some foods and partaking of others, and Peter's zeal was to bring the whole nation into the gift of the gospel, he still honoured the ordinance of the Mosaic laws as a matter of wise management, so that the Jews, knowing that Peter kept the commandments of the law, loved Moses, and glorified the letter, might in good time enter into the gospel gift of the calling, knowing that Peter, while preaching Christ and keeping the law, does not err about the law, having weighed both with prudent reasoning. For if he had honoured the one and loathed the other, and in revering the Gospel turned away from the law, they would at once have rightly loathed him as an enemy of the Mosaic commandment. So it seems to me that Peter, so that this might not happen, with a general's judgment, at the beginning of the saving preaching, did not for a time accept the table of the Gentiles in the sight of Jews, lest the Jews, learning of it, should be shocked and, scandalized by the sight alone, flee the word of the gospel teaching and batter Peter with slanders everywhere, spreading the outlandish talk that he was an apostate from the ancestral commandment. So Peter, considering the matter, judged it fitting and profitable at first to accept the letter of Moses together with the Jews, so as to gather them in the beginning by revering the law, and then, little by little accustoming them, to persuade them to keep in step with the gospel rule alone and live by it, releasing them from the sabbath, circumcision, and the Mosaic foods. And this was rightly Peter's mind, which kept him from eating with the Gentiles when Jews were present. But so as not to harden the Gentiles' disposition, as though he turned away from their way of life, he ate with them when the Jews were absent and kept company with them, in a way persuading them too, through the table, to accept the gospel grace. So he proved profitable to each order: the one he made friends of Christ and refugees with him by living with them, the other he made sharers in the gospel grace by honouring their law. So Paul does not call Peter's circle false apostles, but those sent out by the Jews throughout the world, carrying the circular letters, whom they called “apostles” when they sent them out. There is a long list of things about Peter, but what has been said is enough for you and for those sitting with us. If any heading of other questions from the New Testament remains, report it without delay.

[The philosopher begins a new series of objections, on Paul.] He, becoming thoughtful for a little while, said gravely: “You seem to me very like inexperienced skippers, who, while still sailing the voyage set before them, look about to sail another sea. So you too, before completing the main points of the questions in hand, ask us to set out other headings.” [The Greek:] If, then, you are confident in your answers and the perplexities have become clear to you, tell us how Paul says, “For though I am free, I made myself a slave to all, that I might win all”; and how, though he calls circumcision mutilation, he himself circumcises a certain Timothy at Lystra, as the Acts of the Apostles teach. Bravo for the real stupidity of the words! Such are the stage-pieces and contrivances of laughter that the scenes of the theatres paint; such truly is the juggler's display. For how is he free who is enslaved by all? And how does he win all who apes all? For if he was lawless to the lawless, as he himself says, and a Jew to the Jews, and went along with all alike, he was truly the slave of manifold wickedness, a stranger and alien to freedom; truly a servant and minister of other men's evils, and a notable zealot for unseemly things, if he spends his time on each occasion in the wickedness of the lawless and makes their deeds his own. These are not the doctrines of a sound soul, nor the account of free reasoning; the drift of these words is that of a man festering in mind and sick in reasoning. For if he lives with the lawless and in his writings welcomes Judaism, sharing in each, he is mixed up with each, mingling with and signing himself as partner in the falls of the base. For he who so strikes out circumcision as to curse those who wish to practise it, and then circumcises, is himself his own heaviest accuser, saying, “If I build again what I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor.”

[The philosopher's objection.] This same man, so great a speaker, as though forgetting his own words, tells the tribune that he is not a Jew but a Roman, though before this he had said, “I am a Jewish man, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, educated according to the strictness of the ancestral law.” He who said “I am a Jew” and “I am a Roman” is neither, though he attaches himself to both. For he who plays a part and says what he was not carries on the business of his deeds by deceit; putting on the mask of deception he cheats what is plain and steals the truth, besieging the soul's understanding now one way and now another, and enslaving the credulous by the art of sorcery. One who has embraced such a principle in life differs in nothing from an implacable and bitter enemy, who, feigning the opinions of those beyond his borders, takes them all captive and enslaves them inhumanly. So if Paul, playing a part, is now a Jew and now a Roman, now lawless and now a Greek, whenever he wishes, he is a stranger and an enemy to each thing; slipping into each, he has made each useless, robbing each of its choice with flattery. He is, then, a liar, plainly reared on lying; and it is superfluous for him to say, “I speak the truth in Christ, I do not lie.” For one who yesterday put on the law and today the Gospel is justly regarded as a villain and a hypocrite in private and in public life alike.

[The philosopher's objection.] That he feigns the Gospel for vainglory and the law for greed is clear from what he says: “Who ever serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who tends a flock and does not eat of the milk of the flock?” And wishing to strengthen this, he takes the law as advocate of his greed, saying, “Or does not the law say these things? For in the law of Moses it is written, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.’” Then he adds a statement obscure and full of nonsense, cutting off the irrational animals from divine providence: “Is it for oxen that God cares, or does he speak for our sake? It was written for our sake.” In saying this he seems to me to insult the wisdom of the Creator gravely, as though it took no thought for the things made long ago. For if God does not care about oxen, why is it written, “You have subjected all things, sheep and oxen and beasts and birds and the fishes”? If he takes account of fish, much more of oxen that plough and labour. So I marvel at such a cheat, who for the sake of insatiable greed, and to get a sufficient contribution from those subject to him, so solemnly pays court to the law.

[The philosopher's objection.] Then, suddenly turning about, like a man struck by a dream who leaps up from sleep, he says, “I, Paul, testify that if anyone does one thing of the law, he is a debtor to do the whole law” — instead of saying that one must not attend at all to what the law says. This excellent man, this man of sound mind, this intelligent man, educated in the strictness of the ancestral law, who has so often mentioned Moses so skilfully, as though soaked in wine and drunkenness, abolishes by his decree the commandment of the law, saying to the Galatians, “Who bewitched you, so that you do not obey the truth …” … that a man obey the law, he says, “For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse.” He who writes to the Romans that “the law is spiritual,” and again, “The law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just,” puts under a curse those who obey what is holy! Then, mixing the nature of the matter up and down, he confounds the whole and makes it dark, so that the hearer is all but dizzy, and, as in the night, collides with both, stumbling over the law and knocking against the Gospel in the confusion, because of the ignorance of the one who leads him by the hand.

[The philosopher's objection.] See, see the wise man's account! After countless utterances that he took from the law for support, he annulled the verdict of his own words, saying, “The law came in so that the trespass might abound,” and before this, “The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.” All but whetting his own tongue like a sword, he cuts the law to pieces limb by limb without mercy — the man who in many places urges obedience to the law and says that living by it is praiseworthy. And taking up this ignorant opinion as if from habit, he has overturned his own verdicts everywhere.