Questions and Answers to the Orthodox 25–47

[Question.] If Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in works and words, as the divine Scripture says, how did this blessed prophet not pursue astronomy and geometry and astrology and the things that go with these? For the wisdom of the Egyptians at that time taught the teachings of error. Why then is he admired by Scripture for such words or works? Answer. The divine Scripture admires the prophet for the power of his words and works, not for the words and works in themselves; for in themselves those things were unworthy of the prophet's praise. But since the prophet was renowned among the Egyptians for both, the education of his speech and the worldly splendor of his life, and he honored piety toward God above both, for this reason the divine Scripture admired him. Astronomy, astrology, and geometry among the Egyptians … were reckoned … The studies honored among them at that time were the so-called hieroglyphic ones, handed down in the sanctuaries not to anyone at all but to the select; of these the prophet, even if he had knowledge, yet did not have the use, since it was opposed to the godly way of life of the Hebrews; for this he despised all royal power in Egypt and chose to suffer affliction with the people of God.

[Question.] If all the waters had been made blood by Moses, how does Scripture add, “And the enchanters of the Egyptians did likewise”? For either it is false that all the waters became blood by Moses, or again that the enchanters did likewise. And the same argument holds about the other wonders against them. Answer. When all the waters above the earth had become blood, the Egyptians were compelled to dig wells around the river, to draw water, and to give drink from it to themselves, their animals, and their flocks. From this water drawn from the wells the enchanters made the blood; so the word has in no way proved false. And the miracles done by Moses, since they came about by divine activity, came about by a change of the nature of the thing set before him into the nature of what was being accomplished; but those done by the enchanters came about by the activity of the demons, who deluded the sight of the onlookers so that they saw what was not a serpent as a serpent, what was not blood as blood, and what were not frogs as …

[Question.] If Moses did not act against himself in carrying the bones of Joseph while abhorring as unclean the one who touches a corpse — and if he had some reasonable cause for this, we wish to learn it — why did Scripture not say for what cause Moses did those things while teaching these? Answer. Since Joseph, when dying, made the sons of Israel swear about the carrying up of his bones, and both things were set before Moses to keep, not to transgress the oath and not to touch a corpse, for this reason, by loosening the law that says not to touch a corpse, he kept the oath inviolate. For it was impossible for him to keep both inviolate, the law and the oath. By the greater keeping, that of the oath, he loosed the lesser keeping, that of the law. For everywhere the lesser evil is to be chosen before the greater. And many such things are found in the divine Scripture which God does not reckon as sin to those who transgress them, because of the necessity that befell them: such as circumcision on the eighth day, the circling of Jericho for eight days, and the offering of sacrifices on the Sabbath, which involve the loosening of the Sabbath. Further, if the prophet ordered those who carried the bones of Joseph in turn to be unclean for seven days and [purified] through the purification according to the law of Moses, … the prophet did nothing contrary to what he said. To ask why the prophet did not state the cause of these things is like asking why all the Scriptures were not handed down already interpreted by those who set them out; for in the narrative of a fact the meaning of the fact is implicitly contained. Therefore Scripture did not think fit to state it expressly.

[Question.] If the Lord, refuting the feigned piety of the Pharisees, said that they are whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness; and in the law the one who touched a corpse was reckoned unclean, as having done something improper; and we abhor the dead and their tombs, since both the Old and the New [Testament] call the dead unclean, how did Christ not act contrary to both, when in raising the widow's son he touched the bier, and took the daughter of Jairus by the hand? For even if they rose at once afterwards, yet the dead bodies received the touch. Answer. The dead bodies of corpses and their tombs are abhorred because of the heavy stench that follows them, and not because of their deadness. For if the bodies of the dead were abhorred simply because of their deadness, then we ought not to use the parts of the dead bodies of animals for the needs of the living, such as skins, horns, hair, bile, fat, and flesh; which no argument can exempt from the deadness that belongs to them. But if these too are dead, and yet we do not abhor them because of their usefulness, how is it not most absurd to regard these as clean because of their usefulness, while the Greeks abhor the bodies and tombs of the holy martyrs, which protect against the plots of the demons and heal diseases beyond the medical art? [The dead are called unclean] because, as to the mind of the living the stench and uncleanness of dead bodies is abominable, so the lawlessness of those men is abominable to the mind of the pious, being in a way a deadness of their soul: as, when the soul is separated from the body, the body is dead and stinking and unclean, so, when the fear of God is separated from the soul, the soul is dead … the Lord [transgressed] nothing either of the Old or of the New; for he was not under the law when he raised the dead mentioned in the question. For from his baptism the Lord began the Gospel way of life, which is outside the observance of the law; therefore he was not defiled by touching the dead. And according to the New [Testament], only those things defile men, the evils that come out of the heart; but touching a corpse does not defile a man.

[Question.] If the house where the Lord was was full when the paralytic was about to be healed, and for this reason those carrying him were compelled to break open the roof and let the sick man down through it, how did the crowds gathered in the house not … [Answer.] … when the roof was being uncovered, they surely withdrew. For those uncovering the roof were not so foolish as not to call out to those in the house to withdraw, so that they might not be struck. Nor was there any need to uncover the whole roof, but only as much as sufficed for the …

[Question.] If an angel accompanies each man as guardian, as the divine Scripture says, and men have at times undergone increase and at times decrease, as in the flood and the other calamities, because of their own deeds, what service did the angels, who are not capable of increase and decrease, then fulfill, since each of the angels received a service from God from the beginning? Answer. All the angels, rulers and ruled, fulfill a service useful to the heavens and to the things [made] for man's sake; and those who have received the service of accompanying men as guardians are always increasing and never decreasing. For they either accompany the composite, I mean soul and body, or they accompany the soul after the soul's departure from the body, until the time of the … ; [and those not yet assigned] to accompany men and guard them serve their own rulers in the other ministries on behalf of men.

[Question.] If by a divine nod the clouds send rain down to the earth, why do [enchanters] … the clouds where they wish, [bringing] hail and immoderate rains? Answer. Since you bear witness to this according to the holy Scriptures, [the claim] that the rains come from enchanters is incredible. For you yourself who asked this question did not ask it from what you saw happening, but from what you heard.

[Question.] If God created our nature mortal, how do you say that God did not make death? Answer. If something is mortal by nature, it does not therefore necessarily die; and the proof of this is that Enoch and Elijah, who were mortal by nature, still remain in immortality, having been raised above “Earth you are, and to earth you shall go.” It is true, then, that God made our nature mortal, and that death entered the world through man's disobedience. For if, as God made the nature mortal, so he had also made death, death would not [have come] through disobedience; and if God did not make the disobedience, then neither did he make death.

[Question.] If the nature of men, being mortal, recognizes its own end, but each man's time is not fixed by any limit (what those outside call fate), how were years added to Hezekiah? For what is added is clearly taken in addition to a predetermined number. From where, then, is the indeterminacy of time shown in those who die? Answer. That the time of each one's life is not determined is shown from the words of Scripture thus: “If,” it says, “a man finds [a betrothed girl] in the field and lies with her by force, you shall kill the man, but you shall not kill the girl. For as when a man rises against his neighbor and strikes him, and as he strikes him there is no one to help, so is this matter; and the girl cried out, and there was no one to help her.” The divine Scripture would not have compared the forced violation to a forced killing if death were [predetermined]. For what is determined by God is not forced and not transgressed. But if this is so, clearly years of life were added not to Hezekiah's predetermined life, but to his years that had run on without a fixed limit, whose end was coming through the deadly sickness, had God not healed him of the sickness and restored him to life. [34] Question. [If the] flood did not happen in every place of the earth, but [only] where the men of that time lived, how is it true that the water rose fourteen cubits above all the high mountains? Answer. It does not seem true that the flood did not happen in the whole world, unless perhaps the places where the flood happened were lower than the other places of the earth. [35] Question. [If] … God is good, why did he declare clean what parts the hoof and chews the cud? And again, why is what chews the cud but does not part the hoof, like the camel, ranked among the unclean, and what parts the hoof but does not chew the cud, like the pig, reckoned among the unclean? And among fish, those without scales? And why are the birds divided, when some of the clean ones, if they are permitted, eat and do the same things as the unclean? Answer. By nature all animals are clean, and were made good by God from the beginning, according to what was said: “And God saw all that he had made, and behold, it was very good” … But since God wished, as in all things, to bring the Jews under the yoke of the servitude of the law in what they ate too, for this reason he named some of the animals, birds, and fish clean, whose slaughter and eating he permitted to the Jews, and named some unclean, from eating which he kept them away. These, then, are called both clean and unclean: clean because of their nature, unclean because of the law. And again they are called clean and unclean for another reason. Since in Egypt at that time all animals except the pig were deified, for this reason he named some animals clean and others unclean; and he permitted them to sacrifice the clean, and not to eat the others, as unclean, showing through each that they were unworthy of the name and honor of God, both by being sacrificed and eaten, and again by being called unclean. [36] Question. If the Divine is incapable of change, why does it say about the anointing of Saul that he repented, and about the overthrow of Nineveh that he repented? Answer. The Master God is unchangeable both in his being and in doing the deeds that befit him. But providing for changeable things for the benefit of those for whom he provides, he changes events; therefore he is unchangeable both in pardoning and in not pardoning. For he pardons, unchangeably, those who correct their own faults; but to those who remain uncorrected in their evils … “I repent” shows his unchangeableness in not pardoning; and “The Lord repented” shows his unchangeableness in pardoning. For God is unchangeable, and always continues in what befits him; but he never admits change toward doing what does not befit him.

[Question.] If John's baptism was not according to the law, as indeed it was not, how was it not contrary to the law, and how was it accepted by those under the law? And how were those who were under the law and received the baptism contrary to the law not transgressors? But if the baptism of grace was under the law, being called neither according to the law, nor above the law, nor contrary to the law, according to what will it be found to have taken place? Answer. John's baptism was a prelude to the Gospel of grace; therefore it was above the law. For it was not possible for those who had sinned under the law to receive pardon in it through repentance and faith in Christ.

[Question.] If John wished to assure his disciples about Christ, that he is the one, when he sent them to him (for some have said this), why did he not tell them so by a declaration, but brought them to Christ with a question? But if he himself, because he was shut up in prison, came into doubt about him from the various things that were thought (for others have said this too), why does he ask as though he did not know that he had already come? For “Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?” gives the impression that Christ had not yet come but was still prayed for as one awaited. For if he had been convinced of this, he would not have asked, “Are you the Christ, or someone else besides him?” Answer. Since various reports were going round about the miracles Jesus had done, some saying, “The one who does these things is Elijah,” others, “Jeremiah,” others, “Some other of the prophets,” John, hearing these reports in prison, sends his disciples to learn whether the one who does the signs is the one to whom he had borne witness, or someone else, as the many were saying. Jesus, knowing John's aim, did many miracles in the presence of John's disciples, persuading them, and through them John, that he himself, the one to whom John had borne witness, was the one who had done also the miracles reported under the name of others.

[Question.] If the Master Christ promised to draw all to himself after his own lifting up, how did not all come to faith in him? And how does he, promising to draw all to himself, not contradict “No one comes to me unless my Father draws him”? Answer. Every word is judged by its own end; and the end of drawing all to himself is when he abolishes all rule and authority and power. One must not, then, demand before the end the things of the end. And the Father draws to the Son by giving the Son too authority and power to be able to draw all to himself. It is not, then, at one time that the Father draws to the Son and at another that the Son draws to himself; so there is nothing contrary in the words.

[Question.] If the demons in the possessed … ; but if they do this to those who suffer, … for a short while, departing, how, when they are driven out from them by an invisible power, do they no longer show in them traces of their presence? Answer. It is impossible for … the demons … by his presence … ; nor are his traces present; for the invisible power that drives him out puts fear into him not to come near the healed person again.

[Question.] If it belongs to God alone to give life and strength to bodies, how do the demons do this, [so that the possessed can] break bonds and chains? [For he] was bound with chains and fetters, and, tearing the bonds apart, he was driven by the demon into the desert. Answer. The demon did not give the body the power to be able to break and tear apart the bonds and chains; the demon himself broke and tore apart the bonds and the chains, even if the divine Scripture attributes the works of the demon to the possessed man. [42] Question. [If the demons, when their] oracles [were disobeyed], brought punishments on the Greeks, and when the idols were worshiped removed these and gave them good things in their place, from where is it possible [to come] to the understanding of each? Answer. It was the custom of the demons, for the deception of men, to attach to themselves the strength of God as well as his name. That the demons have no strength to punish the disobedient and benefit the obedient is shown from the overthrow that Hellenism suffered at the hands of Christianity. For Hellenism was openly seen to use no other power against Christianity than that of men's hands and swords. For if Hellenism had had [divine power] at its disposal, it would not have used human power to save itself from overthrow, having vainly expected its gods [to do so]; and this is the greatest proof of the weakness of the demons, and that they were never able to accomplish divine works, punishing the disobedient and benefiting the obedient. Further, if all worship is of beings that live and perceive, how is it not plainly false to say, “When the idols were worshiped they removed the punishments,” when the idols neither live nor perceive, but are as insensible to worship as to disobedience to the oracles?

[Question.] If at the time of the flood it says that the animals were brought into the ark two by two and seven by seven — some say, unreasonably, not four and fourteen of the unclean and the clean, for some have said this, but others that two clean … only — which of the two, then, is truer? Answer. The one who said four and fourteen spoke more truly than the one who said two and seven. For it said “two by two” meaning two males and two females, and “seven by seven” meaning seven males and seven females; and the unclean were two by two. [44] Question. [If of the] living creatures Isaiah and Ezekiel saw a vision, was one and the same thing revealed to both, or was one thing shown to one and another to the other? And what was shown? Answer. Through the vision of the prophet Isaiah [was shown] the mystery of Christ, seated on the throne of glory, and by the eating of his holy flesh making purification of the sins of impious men, those in all the earth who glorify the holy Trinity, equal in honor, for the greatness of the divine gifts; in whose name they were baptized and justified, having received the hope of a share in heavenly and eternal goods. For the coal that the prophet saw brought to his unclean lips for the cleansing of iniquities and sins was an announcement of the Lord's flesh, which cleanses the conscience of those who eat it from all impiety. Through the vision of the prophet Ezekiel he showed what was going to happen to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, as a consolation for the Israelites who were in captivity in Babylon. The prophet saw four-faced living creatures, having likenesses of a man and a lion, a calf and an eagle. And the prophet Daniel says about him: [his feathers] as an eagle's, and his hair as a lion's, and they fed him grass like the calf, and a man's heart was given him. From this vision he gives a consolation to the Israelites, who looked to the mighty and very strong dominion of the Babylonians and were in despair of ever obtaining freedom from such captivity. So that God might move the Israelites from this despair and prepare them to look to his own dominion, he shows the prophet the yoking together of a tame and a wild animal, and the joining of a heavy-bodied animal and a bird. For man is a tame animal, the lion a wild one; and the calf a heavy-bodied animal, the eagle a winged and light one. In the former he shows the change of the kingdom from wildness to tameness; in the latter the change from the heaviness of servitude to freedom. For the calf is under the yoke, but the eagle is free of the yoke. He also shows the prophet a wheel within a wheel, indicating by them the leading away of the Jews into captivity and their leading back to their own land. [45] Question. [Why in the case of Ezekiel] has the divine decree used the title “son of man,” which it did not do with the other prophets? And did the same prophet see the universal resurrection in the dry bones, and did the bones really rise and become complete men, as the book of the same prophet teaches? Answer. Because through the prophet Ezekiel the resurrection of the dead was to be prefigured in a vision, the resurrection that was to take place in fact through the Son of man, according to what was said: “The hour is coming, and now is, when all who are in the tombs will hear the voice of the Son of man, and those who hear will live”; for this reason he is called by the name of the Son of man. … in which he says: “And the Lord spoke to me, saying …” … “They say, Our bones have become dried up, our hope has perished,” and so on. [As Joshua, when he was about to] command the sun and the moon to stand still, receives the name of Jesus, which is honored by creation through obedience to his command, so also Ezekiel receives the name of the Son of man, and through the vision raises the dead by the power of the title. With Ezekiel everything was a vision, both the bones and their resurrection. God shows this vision to the prophet, first indicating through it the universal resurrection of all from the dead which is to take place through Christ; and then for the consolation of the Israelites who had despaired of themselves because they had been enslaved, [that] they will be free of the kingdom of the Babylonians. For as dead bodies lying in tombs have no hope of rising, so they reckoned themselves to be in Babylon without any hope of return. The same prophet shows this, [saying]: “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel” …

[Question.] If all the things of life are good, why are those who abstain from them praised in the Scriptures, and those who hold to them censured? But if [they are not], why are bad things yoked together with our life, and that when the Creator is good? Answer. Abstaining from the good things of life is not simply praiseworthy, nor is holding to them simply blameworthy; but each, abstaining from them and holding to them, is praiseworthy when done with fitting reason, and both are blameworthy when done in the contrary way. That nothing bad in its substance has been yoked to our life the divine Scripture shows, [saying]: “And God saw all that he had made, and behold, it was very good.” But when we voluntarily pervert good things, bad things come into being. For there is nothing bad in what is healthy, while the goods in it remain unperverted; so that nothing is bad apart from the perversion of the good. Nothing bad, then, has been yoked together with our life; for bad things are bad by irrational use and not by nature; and to use them well or badly is a matter of choice.

[Question.] If hearing does not belong to the elements, [how does Moses call heaven and earth to witness against the] people, and Isaiah, accusing the same people, command them to hear? Answer. What is said to heaven and earth is said to the rational beings in them, as what is said to a city is said to its citizens; as in “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills [the prophets and stones] those sent to her.” For it was not the city that killed and stoned, but the citizens. [48] Question. [Why did the Lord say to] Mary after the resurrection, “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father”? If before the ascension no one was permitted to touch him, how a little later did he allow the disciples and Thomas to do this? But if it was permitted, how did he forbid to Mary a little before what he was about to allow to many a little later? Answer. “Do not touch me” was said to Mary by the Savior in the sense of “Do not follow me so as to be always with me, as in my way of life before my cross.” For he wished to wean the disciples little by little from the sight and presence of his body; therefore in the days he spent on earth after the resurrection he neither … to the disciples continually, nor made himself wholly invisible to them, but did both at intervals, being seen by them and not being seen. [49] Question. [Were wild] beasts and cattle, male and female, brought forth in the making of the world? For some of the pious have said this, to establish that the garments of skin were not given to the first men by God from the hide of irrational animals. Answer. If in each kind there are some first parents, and the first parents are works of God, while those after the first parents are works of nature, existing through sowing and generation, then clearly God made no more than one pair, male and female, of each kind. And God made the garments of skin not in human fashion but by creation. For he did not slaughter animals and sew their skins together to make garments, but he created the garments of skin themselves. But perhaps someone will say: if God created the garments of skin after the seven days of creation, how does the divine Scripture say that God rested on the seventh day from all his works which he began to make? He rested from making, that is, from making the things that are not; the skins he now makes he does not now begin to make, but in the making of the animals their skins also came to be long ago. In the same way too: “And the Lord God formed further from the earth all the cattle and the beasts of the field, and brought them to Adam,” and so on; for “further” signifies their second creation.